VÂNIA REIS DE ENSINO DO EMPREENDEDORISMO: RELAÇÃO …§ão.pdf · research was conducted in the University of Aveiro, using an ex-ante, post-ante design for analyzing students’

Universidade de Aveiro

Ano 2015 Departamento de Economia, Gestão e Engenharia Industrial

VÂNIA REIS DE CASTRO

ENSINO DO EMPREENDEDORISMO: RELAÇÃO COM A INTENÇÃO EMPREENDEDORA E A CRIATIVIDADE


Ano 2015 Departamento de Economia, Gestão e Engenharia Industrial

VÂNIA REIS DE CASTRO

ENSINO DO EMPREENDEDORISMO: RELAÇÃO COM A INTENÇÃO EMPREENDEDORA E A CRIATIVIDADE

Dissertação apresentada à Universidade de Aveiro para cumprimento dos requisitos necessários à obtenção do grau de Mestre em Gestão, realizada sob a orientação científica da Doutora Ana Isabel Dias Daniel, Professora Auxiliar Convidada do Departamento de Economia, Gestão e Engenharia Industrial da Universidade de Aveiro.

o júri

presidente Professor Doutor Daniel Ferreira Polónia Professor Auxiliar Convidado do Departamento de Economia, Gestão e Engenharia Industrial da Universidade de Aveiro

Professora Doutora Ana Isabel Dias Daniel Professora Auxiliar Convidada do Departamento de Economia, Gestão e Engenharia Industrial da


Professor Doutor António Carrizo Moreira Professor Auxiliar do Departamento de Economia, Gestão e Engenharia Industrial da Universidade de Aveiro

agradecimentos

Gostaria de agradecer à minha orientadora Professora Doutora Ana Isabel Dias Daniel por se ter demonstrado sempre disponível e, principalmente, por me ter ajudado a conhecer um pouco mais deste mundo do empreendedorismo. Aos meus pais, por toda a sabedoria e amor, por não me deixarem desistir e me terem permitido chegar onde estou hoje. Aos meus avós, os meus maiores admiradores e as pessoas que mais acreditam em mim. Espero deixar-vos orgulhosos. Ao Paulo, por tudo o que tem sido para mim. Foste essencial nesta jornada, sem ti não teria conseguido chegar ao fim. À minha colega de casa Graça, por cada docinho a meio da noite para me animar e o ombro amigo sempre disponível. Aos meus amigos Maria, Raquel e Fábio, por me incentivarem e, acima de tudo, por estarem sempre ao meu lado, mesmo nesta fase em que estive mais ausente. Aos meus amigos e colegas de mestrado Sílvia, Lígia e Diogo, por terem sido os melhores companheiros que podia pedir nesta caminhada que foi o mestrado. Aos meus colegas de trabalho na Irbal e ao meu patrão, por compreenderem a minha ausência e o meu cansaço em diversos dias. Um obrigado a todos. De coração.

palavras-chave

Empreendedorismo, educação em empreendedorismo, intenção empreendedora, criatividade

resumo

Apesar do número de programas de educação no âmbito do empreendedorismo estar a crescer, o seu impacto continua a gerar controvérsia no mundo científico. Métodos pouco definidos e estratégias mal direcionadas não permitem que a educação empreendedora explore todo o seu potencial em relação ao impacto que poderá ter na intenção empreendedora dos alunos e, consequentemente, no seu possível futuro comportamento empreendedor. A presente dissertação pretende contribuir para a compreensão deste tema através da análise da influência da unidade curricular de empreendedorismo na intenção empreendedora dos alunos, tendo por base a Teoria do Comportamento Planeado. Pretende também compreender qual a relação do ensino de empreendedorismo com a criatividade e qual o papel que esta poderá ter para a intenção empreendedora.

Keywords

Entrepreneurship, entrepreneurship education, entrepreneurial intention, creativity

Abstract

Although the number of education programs in the context of entrepreneurship is growing, its impact continues to generate controversy in the scientific world. Poorly defined methods and misguided strategies do not allow entrepreneurial education to exploit its potential regarding the impact it may have on the entrepreneurial intention of students and, consequently, on their possible future entrepreneurial behaviour. This work aims to contribute to the understanding of this theme by analyzing the influence of the programme of entrepreneurship on the entrepreneurial intention of students, through the Theory of Planned Behaviour. It also intends to understand the relationship between entrepreneurship education and creativity and what role it can have on entrepreneurial intention.

I

Table of Contents

Chapter 1: Introduction ......................................................................................... 1

Chapter 2: Literature Review ................................................................................ 3

2.1. Importance of Entrepreneurship Education .................................................. 3

2.1.1. Historical Overview ................................................................................ 3

2.1.2. Entrepreneurship Education in Portugal ................................................ 5

2.1.3. Entrepreneurship Education: a challenge among researchers .............. 6

2.2. Impact of Entrepreneurship Education on Students ..................................... 7

2.3. Impact of Entrepreneurial Education on Entrepreneurial Intentions ............. 9

2.3.1. Intention models .................................................................................. 11

2.4. Role of creativity on Entrepreneurship ....................................................... 14

2.5. Entrepreneurial Creativity and Entrepreneurial Intentions .......................... 19

2.6. Research questions ................................................................................... 21

Chapter 3: Methodology ..................................................................................... 25

3.1. Investigation goals ..................................................................................... 25

3.2. Research framework .................................................................................. 25

3.2.1. The Sample ......................................................................................... 26

3.2.2. Questionnaire development................................................................. 27

Chapter 4: Analysis and Discussion of Results .................................................. 29

4.1. Sample characterization ............................................................................ 29

4.2. Selection Bias ............................................................................................ 31

4.3. Normal distribution test .............................................................................. 32

4.4. Multicollinearity test .................................................................................... 33

4.5. Reliability Test............................................................................................ 34

4.6. Testing the research questions .................................................................. 35

4.7. Discussion of results .................................................................................. 39

Chapter 5: Conclusion ........................................................................................ 43

References ........................................................................................................... 45

Appendices ........................................................................................................... 53

Appendice I – Students’ questionnaire.............................................................. 53

Appendice II – Creativity test ............................................................................ 57

II

III

Table of Figures

Figure 1 - The theory of planned behavior (Ajzen, 1991) ..................................... 12

Figure 2 - Entrepreneurial Intention Conceptual Model ........................................ 21

Figure 3 - Sample characterization by age ........................................................... 29

Figure 4 - Sample characterization by gender ...................................................... 30

Figure 5 - Sample characterization by field of study ............................................. 30

Figure 6 - Sample characterization by professional experience ........................... 31

Table of Tables

Table 1 – Independent Samples t-test .................................................................. 32

Table 2 - Normal distribution test: skewness and kurtosis .................................... 33

Table 3 - Multicollinearity test ............................................................................... 34

Table 4 - Reliability test: Cronbach’s alpha .......................................................... 35

Table 5 - T-test for paired samples ....................................................................... 36

Table 6 - Multiple Regression ............................................................................... 38

IV

V

List of Acronyms

ATB - Attitude Towards Behaviour

C - Creativity

DEGEI - Department of Economics, Management and Industrial Engineering

EEM - Model of the Entrepreneurial Event

EI - Entrepreneurial Intention

ESE - Entrepreneurial Self-Efficacy

GCEC - Global Consortium of Entrepreneurship Centers

GEM - Global Entrepreneurship Monitor

MBA - Master of Business Administration

PBC - Perceived Behavioral Control

SN - Social Norms

TPB - Theory of Planned Behaviour

VIF - Variation Inflation Factor

VI

1

Chapter 1: Introduction

According to Kuratko (2003), the generation of the twenty-first century should be

considered as an entrepreneurial generation. By the year of 2003, around 5.6 million

Americans, with less than 34 years old, were actively trying to start their own businesses,

around 30 percent of new entrepreneurs were younger than age 30, more than 60 percent

of young people between 18 and 29 year old wanted to own their own businesses.

The reality is that entrepreneurship is the new trend. Everyone, from politicians to

experts and to entrepreneurs themselves, talk about this subject. According to them,

entrepreneurship will be the salvation of industrial societies. To be able to follow this

tendency, academic and community organizations committed to prepare entrepreneurs

capable of revitalizing economy by creating jobs. Organizations yearning to develop

entrepreneurship through education assume that the lack of training for entrepreneurs is

the central cause for the failure of small and medium-sized enterprises (Bechard &

Toulouse, 1998).

Entrepreneurship as a factor of importance to a nation is a longstanding perspective.

For example, the European Union finds the encouragement of entrepreneurship to be a

vital aspect in order to face the economic challenges presented worldwide (Amway,

2012). However, the reality shows that public policy aiming to make considerable

enhancement in a nation's economic well-being through innovation can find that

entrepreneurship education has not been able to achieve its economic goals, since

education programmes and initiatives are developed in a wrong place by people with

misaligned ideas or a confused opinion about what entrepreneurship is and does

(O’Connor, 2013). This confirms the importance of well-defined and well orientated

programmes at higher education institutions, since it is where competences and

knowledge are developed to later be applied to the market, creating value, wealth and

competiveness (Batalha & Pimpão, 2011).

Within this matter, several doubtful questions have emerged and limited the value and

applicability of the growing knowledge on this subject (Matlay, 2006). For example,

Garavan and O'Cinneide (1994b) identify considerable variations in terms of: centres of

knowledge, target audience, duration, structure and content of entrepreneurship

programmes. Also, analyzing its impact, there have been doubts about the effectiveness

of entrepreneurship education, in terms of economic results as well as in the development

of certain individual characteristics (O’Connor, 2013).

A factor that only recently has been considered in intention-based models is creativity

(Hamidi, Wennberg, & Berglund, 2008). Nevertheless, entrepreneurship and innovative

behaviour are, by common sense, associated with creativity. In fact, innovativeness and

creativity are characteristics usually described as differentiators between entrepreneurs

and other small business owners (Cliff, Jennings, & Greenwood, 2006).

2

There are studies, such as a research conducted by Ward (2004), suggesting that

creative individuals are more likely to develop entrepreneurial behaviour. Also, Hamidi et

al. (2008), while performing their research, found that high scores on the creativity test

produced a strong positive effect on entrepreneurial intentions.

Therefore, this dissertation aims to analyze the relationship of entrepreneurship

education with entrepreneurial intention and creativity, as well as the connection between

entrepreneurial intention and creativity. Understanding this relationship is essential in

order to evaluate the impact of entrepreneurship education on both aspects. This study’s

research was conducted in the University of Aveiro, using an ex-ante, post-ante design for

analyzing students’ entrepreneurial intentions and creativity.

This dissertation has the following structure: first, a literature review presents the state

of the art theme of entrepreneurship, including research about the importance of

entrepreneurship education, the impact of entrepreneurship education on students,

relationship between entrepreneurship education and entrepreneurial intention, the role of

creativity in entrepreneurship and its relationship with entrepreneurial intention. The next

chapter it is focused on the methodological options, description of samples and

development of questionnaires used in this study, followed by the chapter where the

results obtained are analyzed. And finally, in the conclusion, are taken concluding remarks

on this study, and are also identified some limitations and suggestions for the future.

3

Chapter 2: Literature Review

2.1. Importance of Entrepreneurship Education

“It is becoming clear that entrepreneurship, or certain facets of it, can be taught.

Business educators and professionals have evolved beyond the myth that entrepreneurs

are born, not made.” (Kuratko, 2003, p. 11). There is a lot of discussion regarding the

possibility of developing entrepreneurs through entrepreneurship education, but the truth

is that, for the past decades, entrepreneurship education has in fact evolved from a myth

to a reality. Nowadays, not everyone believes that entrepreneurs are born and cannot be

made. Some biographies of successful entrepreneurs frequently give the reader the

understanding that these persons were born with an extraordinary genetic gift, but there

are almost as many defying stories of those who hit the entrepreneurial jackpot without

the benefits of genetics. It is clear that genetics does not play a role when it comes to

entrepreneurship success (Garavan & O’Cinneide, 1994a).

Already in 1985, Peter Drucker, known as one of the leading management thinkers of

our time, has recognized this reality by stating “The entrepreneurial mystique? It’s not

magic, it’s not mysterious, and it has nothing to do with the genes. It’s a discipline. And,

like any discipline, it can be learned” (Druker, 1985). Since that time, literature review on

entrepreneurship and business management education has come to support Drucker’s

belief that entrepreneurial thinking can in fact be developed in individuals.

Entrepreneurship education has been categorized by Kourilsky (1995, p. 13) in three

main areas: “the identification or recognition of a market opportunity and the generation of

a business idea (service or product) to address an opportunity; the marshalling and

commitment of resources in the face of risk to pursue an opportunity; and the creation of

an operating business organization to implement the opportunity-motivated business

idea.” Furthermore, Bechard and Toulouse (1998, p. 320) have described

entrepreneurship education as “a collection of formalised teachings that informs, trains,

and educates anyone interested in business creation, or small business development”. In

broader terms, entrepreneurship education can be positioned in an ample definition than

business, preparing not only an entrepreneur, who may become self-employed and owner

of an enterprise, but also someone who is able to chase entrepreneurship and innovation

as an employee and be a person who displays enterprising behaviour (Gibb, 2002).

2.1.1. Historical Overview

Entrepreneurship education as a reality in business schools began in the early 1970s.

The first Master of Business Administration (MBA) focussed on entrepreneurship was

released in 1971 in the University of Southern California. From that point on,

entrepreneurship education began to take its course. In the beginning of the 1980s more

than 300 universities were teaching courses based on entrepreneurship and development

4

of small business, number that had raise to 1.050 schools by the 1990s (Kuratko, 2005).

The Global Consortium of Entrepreneurship Centers (GCEC), formerly the National

Consortium of Entrepreneurship Centers, was founded in 1996, at the University of

Indiana in the United States of America, with the objective of establishing a continued

partnership among the various well-recognized entrepreneurship centres, as well as the

newer centres. This collaboration allowed the centres to work together by sharing

information, developing special projects and helping one another in advancing and

improving their centres’ impact (Kuratko, 2003). In 2005, entrepreneurship education in

the US was already taught in more than 2.200 courses at over 1.600 schools (Kuratko,

2005). But why did this reality took place? The initial expansion of entrepreneurship

programmes was highlighted by students and accreditation bodies that where unsatisfied

with general business education courses at university level (Solomon & Fernald, 1991).

The significant expansion observed during this period in regard to the number of

courses and the contents of related programmes can also be seen as a consequence of

government’s belief that entrepreneurship could have a positive impact on the socio-

economic and political infrastructure of a nation (Matlay & Carey, 2007). In developing

countries, entrepreneurial education is also seen as a vital part for the progressive offer in

private and public business schools (Li & Matlay, 2005). In addition, entrepreneurship

education is also considered as the most effective way to make the switch from a

graduate student of higher education into a self-employment or salaried worker (Matlay &

Westhead, 2005). Therefore, one of the main topics on the top of socio-economic and

political agendas is entrepreneurship education, representing a high concern for

government policy all over the world, in both developed and developing countries (Mitra &

Matlay, 2004).

Moreover, the European Commission (2006) dedicates special attention to

entrepreneurship in high education schools and universities, referring that they should

incorporate entrepreneurship as an important element of their programmes, divided by

several subjects, and demand or encourage students to participate in entrepreneurship

courses. The European Commission (2006) also defends that high education institutes

should integrate entrepreneurship in programmes of different areas of study, since it can

add value to all courses.

A high share of entrepreneurship education at university level is offered by business

schools, since there is large interest in entrepreneurship amongst business school

students. Nevertheless, almost every university and school has nowadays a variety of

courses about how to start and sponsor new business. This is due to the increasing

importance of entrepreneurship education as an approach to prepare students for

surviving in the contemporary work and living environment. Thus, in addition to

entrepreneurship courses taught for business students, sense of initiative and

entrepreneurship have become more widely viewed as key competences necessary for all

students (and society in general) despite their area of expertise (Küttim, Kallaste,

Venesaar, & Kiis, 2014).

Solomon (2007) carried out one of the most comprehensive empirical analyses on

entrepreneurship education. He stated that “a core objective of entrepreneurship

education that differentiates it from typical business education is the challenge to generate

more quickly a greater variety of different ideas for how to exploit a business opportunity,

5

and the ability to project a more extensive sequence of actions for entering business

(Vesper and McMullan, 1988). To this end, entrepreneurial education must include skill-

building courses in negotiation, leadership, new product development, creative thinking

and exposure to technological innovation (McMullan and Long, 1987; Vesper and

McMullan, 1988).”

2.1.2. Entrepreneurship Education in Portugal

In Portugal, only recently entrepreneurship education became part of programmes in

universities. As a reflection of what was happening in other countries, in the last few years

other areas of study started having interest in this subject, expanding its importance

across different schools. The development of entrepreneurship programmes in Portugal is

a recent phenomenon, since the first classes of entrepreneurship were taught in 2002

(Redford, 2008). In 2004/2005, there were 22 programmes of entrepreneurship in 17 high

education institutes, number that has increased to 26 programmes and 21 institutions in

2005/2006 (SEDES, 2007). More recently, in 2010/2011, there were 27 entrepreneurship

programmes/courses in Portugal, some leading to academic degree and others not. The

majority of these courses are Master’s Degree (78%) and the rest correspond to one PhD

and four postgraduate courses. The offer of 41% of these courses in being held by public

universities, 33% can be found in by private universities and the other 26% in public

polytechnic institutions (Batalha & Pimpão, 2011).

According to the Global Entrepreneurship Monitor (GEM), between 2011 and 2012

entrepreneurship activities in Portugal did not suffered significant modifications in their

most important rates, which means that the economic, financial and social crisis in the

country has not affected negatively its entrepreneurship initiative (GEM, 2012, p. 7). This

shows the growth and importance of entrepreneurship in Portugal.

According to the Amway European Entrepreneurship Report (2012), Portugal is the

third European country with the biggest percentage of people self-employed (10%).

Nevertheless, is one of the four countries where the citizens have a more negative attitude

towards self-employment, meaning that they are less motivated to start their own

business.

Along the same line, Redford (2008) has determined in their study that only 14,8% of

students believed that the Portuguese education system developed the necessary

potential for the creation of employment. Following the Amway Report (2012), this can be

due to cultural phenomenon, like the need for stability and security, as well as the fear of

failure.

In Portugal, basic and high schools, as well as some universities, are still not focused

in developing skills such as autonomy, risk taking, responsibility, decision making, and

self-confidence, which are fundamental in entrepreneurship. The lack of nurturing

important attitudes as well as teaching basic management skills and competences from

young age reinforce the magnitude that entrepreneurship education can have in this

6

country (Dominguinhos, Sardinha, Carvalho, Ramalho, & Pereira, 2005). In fact, the role

of higher education institutes in the expansion of the level of business and management

education was considered one of the most positive aspects to the structural condition of

Education and Training, according to the Portuguese specialists. On the other hand, the

reduced awareness given to entrepreneurship in primary and secondary education was

pointed out as one of the least favourable in the context of this structural condition (GEM,

2010). As stated by Sarkar (2007, p. 7) “The promotion of an entrepreneur and innovative

spirit is no longer an option to Portugal. It is rather a primordial necessity”.

2.1.3. Entrepreneurship Education: a challenge among researchers

Young people are challenging universities to present them with educational

opportunities to understand the role of entrepreneurship and to gain the knowledge and

skills essential for successful entrepreneurship. Despite this extensive growth in demand

of entrepreneurship education, there is still a giant discrepancy in the quality of

entrepreneurship education programmes on offer, including programmes, design, delivery

methods and forms of assessment (Matlay & Carey, 2007). Unfortunately, the contents

that should be the core of entrepreneurship education haven’t reached general consent

and, as a consequence, cannot keep up with the undeniable accelerated case of

emerging of entrepreneurship education. In particular, many universities have

inadvertently escalated onto the much better understood and more accessible area of

business management education in their well-intentioned attempts to deal with the more

hardly understandable goal of real entrepreneurship education (Kourilsky, 1995).

Since the literature in the area was only developed in the past two decades, there is a

serious shortage of research centred on entrepreneurship education and training

(Garavan & O’Cinneide, 1994a), especially concerning programmes designed to be

delivered outside business schools, for students specialising in subjects not directly

related to business or graduating from non-business schools (Matlay & Carey, 2007).

While the field is expanding, most of the research has tended to be fragmented and with

an exploratory, descriptive orientation. Literature shows that there is a lack of accepted

paradigms or theories of entrepreneurship education and training. The lack of a clear

consensus on the definition of an entrepreneur contributes to the confusion; it is therefore

understandable that the content of entrepreneurship education and training programmes

varies according to the trainer’s personal preferences as to definition and scope (Garavan

& O’Cinneide, 1994a). Due to these substantial discrepancies in what concerns course

design, content and assessment powerful debates are being held between various

stakeholders, regarding courses appropriateness and cost effectiveness (Matlay & Carey,

2007). For example, initially in China, entrepreneurship education was not integrated into

the programmes or part of a coherent framework and initiatives were often taken up by

only a few universities. In this case, entrepreneurship was more probable to be taught as

a separate subject or offered as an extra-curricular activity (Li & Matlay, 2005).

Most of entrepreneurship education efforts were missing its real goal because it was

not given proper attention to the essential strategic challenge that was to consider

different educational needs of people in different stages of entrepreneurial process

7

(Kourilsky, 1995). In the early years of entrepreneurship education, most of the

entrepreneurship programmes taught in universities were focusing on three main areas:

(1) entrepreneurial education, (2) outreach activities with entrepreneurs, and (3)

entrepreneurial research. A few years later, and more recently, the trend in most

universities was to develop or expand entrepreneurship programmes and draw distinctive

and challenging curriculum, specifically designed for entrepreneurship students (Kuratko,

2003).

2.2. Impact of Entrepreneurship Education on Students

Although there has been an increase in the number of programmes and initiatives in

the area of entrepreneurship, there are still some doubts regarding the efficacy of

entrepreneurship education, in terms of business creation and also concerning the

development of skills by the students (O’Connor, 2013). The impact and benefits of

entrepreneurial education are poorly understood since there has been so little accurate

investigation of its effects (Garavan & O’Cinneide, 1994a, 1994b; O’Connor, 2013). Also,

only a few studies support that the entrepreneurial behaviour is related to entrepreneurial

education (Kolvereid & Moen, 1997).

Nevertheless, many researchers strongly believe in the significant impact that

entrepreneurship education can have on the number and the quality of graduate

entrepreneurs. Also, there is a growing consensus amongst policy makers and other

important stakeholders that entrepreneurship education can increase both the quality and

the quantity of graduate entrepreneurs entering the economy (Matlay, 2006). It is argued

that students who chose entrepreneurship education as part of their curriculum tend to

have a higher tendency to engage in entrepreneurship activities (Vesper & Gartner, 1997).

About this subject, Reynolds (1997) concluded that education in general, and

entrepreneurship education in particular, has a positive influence upon individual

preference for self-employment. Another example of this impact is that entrepreneurs with

higher educational achievements tend to do better, and their firms survive longer, than

their equals with lower education and training (Bates, 1995).

The central argument for this agreement of opinions is based on the assumption that

the entrepreneurship education programmes in high education institutes can positively

influence students’ attitudes towards entrepreneurship and provide future entrepreneurs

with the necessary knowledge and skills to start up, manage and develop economically

viable businesses (Matlay, 2006).

Krueger and Brazeal (1994) confirmed in their study that entrepreneurship education

makes the idea of building their own business more viable to the participants. In the study

realized by Kolvereid and Moen (1997), the behaviour of business graduate students with

major in entrepreneurship is compared to the behaviour of graduate students with other

majors from a Norwegian business school. The results have shown that the students with

major in entrepreneurship are more prone to initiate a new business and have higher

entrepreneurial intentions. According to Lüthje and Franke’s study (2003),

entrepreneurship education and universities support at the entrepreneurial level have a

8

positive impact on the entrepreneurial intentions. In the authors’ study is also suggested

that the lack of this type of education leads to low levels of entrepreneurial intentions

among the students. Souitaris et al. (2007) conclude that entrepreneurship education

programmes lead to the development of attitudes and global intention by the students in

order for them to become future entrepreneurs.

Although there is some agreement, the several studies conducted in this area present

conflicting results, what can be easily understood by the non-standardization of teaching

contents, pedagogies and methodologies (O’Connor, 2013).

According to Huber et al. (2012), the investigation made in the area of

entrepreneurship is in fact the study of the impact of entrepreneurship activities in

students, which generate no consensus, since in some studies it was possible to

demonstrate the connection between entrepreneurship activities and students’ future

intentions (Roxas et al., 2008; Paço et al., 2011), while other studies reveal no significant

conclusions regarding this subject (Oosterbeek et al., 2010).

The first studies developed in this context, like the ones conducted by Vesper and

Gartner (1997), Alberti et al. (2004) and Henry et al. (2005a, 2005b), simply described the

entrepreneurship programmes, by discussing their contents or evaluating their economic

impact. For example, in 1994, Garavan and O’Cinneide made a transversal evaluation to

five entrepreneurship programmes by measuring their success through the number of

businesses and job positions created. Their results show that 755 students created 2665

job positions (Garavan & O’Cinneide, 1994b). However, these methods of evaluation are

not considered very efficient, since they do not perceive any type of modification in the

participants’ behaviour or intentions towards the development or trigger of some sort of

change at economical, social and/or business level or even in themselves (Alberti et al.,

2004).

The effects of this type of programme are complex and the measurable results based

on the number of businesses or job positions created can often only be observed many

years after participation in the course (Fayolle, Gailly, & Lassas-Clerc, 2006). According to

Souitaris et al. (2007), it is usual for the graduate students to earn some work experience

even before they consider open their own business, taking normally five to ten years to do

it.

This discrepancy in results of different studies is reinforced in the study conducted by

Lorz (2011). Although he has found a positive impact of entrepreneurial education on the

entrepreneurial intention, in 33 of the 41 studies reviewed by him, the 8 remaining ones

show mixed or negative results. This author has developed and implemented an

analysis’s methodology in order to fill in the diverse methodological gaps contained on

these articles and has reached the conclusion that entrepreneurship education has no

impact on entrepreneurial intention. Other authors, such as Peterman and Kennedy

(2003) and Souitaris et al. (2007), have also criticized the inconsistency of these results,

concluding that it is due to methodological deficiencies. Lorz (2011) highlights the fact that

the majority of studies is focused on measuring the impact of entrepreneurial education

only at the time when the participants have already finished the course, so there is no real

evaluation of the participants throughout the programme, and also that the majority of

9

studies does not consider the differences between participants at a social-demographic

level as well as academic background, assuming that entrepreneurial education has the

same effects on all students, independently from their demographic characteristics or

previous exposure to entrepreneurial behaviour.

Another relevant aspect is that most of MBA programmes only accept graduates with

previous working experience and so the visible increase in success of this type of

programmes could be explained by this characteristic as well as other related ones

(Krueger & Brazeal, 1994). Graduates with relevant business experience could have

acquired a relevant knowledge base and contextual advantage and therefore would

benefit considerably from entrepreneurship education courses that outline, discuss and

reinforce critical issues and solutions related to business venture creation (Taylor &

Banks, 1992).

By analysing the literature on entrepreneurship education, specifically its impact, it is

easily observed a number of problems regarding definition, concept and context which

spreads some doubts in what concerns the validity, comparability and generalisation

potential of emerging results (Matlay, 2006). There is a high heterogeneity of factors that

feature entrepreneurship education, as for example target-groups, objectives and course

duration, and there are no well defined and standardized methods of evaluation. Henry et

al. (2005b) call attention for the importance and complexity of the evaluation of impact of

entrepreneurship education, and reinforce that it must be performed through a rigorous

approach in order to obtain precise conclusions.

Entrepreneurship education courses delivered in universities can be considerably

influenced by conceptual, contextual and design differences. In addition, several personal,

family and peer aspects often influence a graduate’s career aspirations, entrepreneurial

motivation or nascent potential (Matlay, 2006). On another hand, if entrepreneurial

potential can apparently be acquired indirectly by cultural aspects and experiences it gives

support to the vision that it might also be influenced by education and training

interventions (Garavan & O’Cinneide, 1994a).

Although the growing body of empirically rigorous research in this area has so far

provided only limited evidence to support the assumption that entrepreneurship education

can generate better outcomes at various stages of entrepreneurial activity, from start-up

through to exit strategies (Matlay, 2008), entrepreneurship education is relatively new and

it is about innovation and creativity and it continues to assume an important and essential

role in business and non-business schools. It can easily be the future for universities

(Kuratko, 2005).

2.3. Impact of Entrepreneurial Education on Entrepreneurial Intentions

Throughout the years, the decision of becoming entrepreneur has been analyzed using

several different approaches. The diversification of lines of study has allowed the

10

identification of significant connections between certain demographic features or

characteristics of people and their entrepreneurial behaviour. However, the predictive

capacity has been very limited (Reynolds, 1997). From a theoretical point of view, these

approaches have been criticized for their conceptual and methodological problems as well

as for their reduced explanatory capability (Krueger Jr. & Reilly, 2000).

From another perspective, since the decision of becoming entrepreneur can plausibly

be considered as volunteer and conscious (Krueger Jr. & Reilly, 2000), it seems

reasonable to analyze the decision process taken. In this sense, the entrepreneurial

intention would be a previous and determinant element of the entrepreneurial behaviour

(Fayolle et al., 2006). A more favourable attitude would increase the intention of going

forward with it. This way, the “attitude approach” would be preferable comparing to the

ones rationally used, such as approaches through personality traits or demographic

features (Krueger Jr. & Reilly, 2000). In fact, literature has revealed that the insertion of

entrepreneurship programmes in high education courses can contribute to increase the

students’ intention towards creating new businesses (Shinnar, Pruett, & Toney, 2009).

Several empirical studies have found that a person’s intention to become an

entrepreneur offers the best predictor of her actually engaging in entrepreneurship in the

future (Krueger Jr. & Reilly, 2000). Building on more general models, entrepreneurial

intentions are typically considered to be formed by a person’s attitude toward

entrepreneurship, prevailing social norms attached to entrepreneurship, and the person’s

level of self-efficacy (Hamidi et al., 2008).

Many researchers have been investigating the creation of new companies, focusing

their studies on high education students analyzing their attitudes towards

entrepreneurship and the aspects of the surrounding environment which influence those

attitudes. Veciana et al. (2005) studied the institutional factors, formal and informal, that

influence the creation of new businesses, as well as the perception of entrepreneurs

regarding the will, viability and intention of creating a company. Olmos and Castillo (2007)

analyzed the characteristics which influence positively the entrepreneurial intentions of

students, taking into consideration personality traits, values, social-demographic factors

and academic training. According to the authors, high education schools have an

important role in motivating students to entrepreneurship. In their investigation they also

developed a profile of the entrepreneurship student, having as reference the theoretical

base of the Global Entrepreneurship Monitor (GEM), having identified several focus,

mainly based on psychological and social-institutional factors. Toledano (2006) studied

the attitudes of young people in the University of Huelva (Spain) regarding the conception

of new companies and tried to verify the existence of connections between those attitudes

and the factors that have usually been used to explain the entrepreneurial behaviour.

According to Peterman and Kennedy (2003), the creation of new businesses is a result of

an interaction between context factors, which act through their influence on the person’s

perceptions.

11

2.3.1. Intention models

The importance of entrepreneurial intentions as antecedents of planned behaviour

(such as founding a new business) has been emphasized in recent years (Krueger Jr. &

Reilly, 2000). Studies have shown that people have intentions towards a particular

behaviour, and in turn these intentions, determine actual behaviour (Krueger Jr. & Reilly,

2000; N. F. Krueger & Brazeal, 1994). As a consequence, the process of new business

creation begins when an individual develops intent to do so, which means that,

entrepreneurs intent to become entrepreneurs before discovery of relevant business

opportunity. One way to study entrepreneurship relevant phenomena is by applying

models of attitude-behaviour relations that focus on entrepreneurial intentions. Intentions

and intention formation processes are well-established subfields within entrepreneurship

literature and the importance of intentions as behaviour antecedents (such as founding a

business) has been emphasized in recent years (Shook, Priem, & McGee, 2003).

Intentional models provide evidence that the construct of self-efficacy (the belief that one

has the ability to perform tasks effectively in various situations) plays an important role as

an antecedent for promoting perceived feasibility of venture and are valuable to

understand intentions toward planned, intentional behaviour to engage in entrepreneurial

function (Zampetakis & Moustakis, 2006).

The fundamental theory driven models that have been proposed in the literature are

Ajzen’s (1991) Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB) and Shapero’s (1982) Model of the

Entrepreneurial Event (EEM).

2.3.1.1. The Theory of Planned Behaviour

The Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB) was developed by Ajzen, in 1991. The TPB

model explains intentions by means of attitudes, perceived behavioural control and

subjective norms and is used in entrepreneurship research to model career choice

targeting entrepreneurial intentions (Krueger Jr. & Reilly, 2000; Liñán, 2008). Briefly,

according to the TPB, our performance of a particular behaviour is determined by our

behavioural intentions to perform that behaviour while those intentions are determined by

our attitude, subjective norms and perceived behavioural control concerning the

behaviour. Studies based on the TPB show that behaviour can be strongly predicted by

intentions and that intentions are largely predicted by these three attitudinal constructs

(Lourenço & Jayawarna, 2011). For this reason, the TPB is widely used among

researchers to predict the future behaviour of individuals via the intentions construct and

to measure intentions themselves (Krueger Jr. & Reilly, 2000; Krueger & Brazeal, 1994;

Krueger, 1993; Liñán, 2008; Lorz, 2011; Lourenço & Jayawarna, 2011).

The TPB consists of five general constructs: behavioural attitude, subjective norms,

perceived behavioural control, behavioural intention and behaviour (Lourenço &

Jayawarna, 2011). This theory identifies three attitudinal antecedents of intention, where

two of them reflect the perceived desirability of performing the behaviour – behavioural

attitude toward outcomes of the behaviour and perceived subjective norms – and the third,

12

perceived behavioural control, reflects the perception that the behaviour is self-

controllable (Krueger Jr. & Reilly, 2000).

Someone’s attitude towards the behaviour relates to the perceived desirability of

performing the particular behaviour and it depends on the expectations about personal

impacts of outcomes resulting from such behaviour. The subjective norms refer to the

social pressure to perform or not a particular behaviour due to the expectations of others

(e.g. parents, peers, and employer). Perceived behavioural control reflects the perceived

ease or difficulty of performing the behaviour and is thus related to perceptions of

situational competence (self-efficacy). Behavioural intention is related to the individual’s

willingness to perform a given behaviour. Finally, the behaviour refers to the actual

performance of certain behaviour. The common rule is that the more favourable the

attitude and subjective norms towards a specific behaviour and the bigger the level of

perceived behavioural control, the stronger the person’s intention to engage in the

considered behaviour (Krueger Jr. & Reilly, 2000; Lourenço & Jayawarna, 2011).

2.3.1.2. The Entrepreneurial Event Model

Another model is Shapero’s (1982) Model of the Entrepreneurial Event (EEM), that is

centred on the entrepreneurial event and explaining the processes that lead to it, by

stating that it is affected by perceptions of desirability (the value system and social system

of the individual), of feasibility (financial support and would-be partners) and also from a

propensity to act. These perceptions are the product of cultural and social environments

and they determine personal choice. This model is, in its core, an intention model specific

to the domain of entrepreneurship (Krueger Jr. & Reilly, 2000; Liñán, 2008).

“Shapero defined perceived desirability as the personal attractiveness of starting a

business, including both intrapersonal and extra personal impacts. Perceived feasibility is

the degree to which one feels personally capable of starting a business. Empirically,

Shapero proposed a testable eight-item inventory of questions aimed at different aspects

of perceived desirability and feasibility. Empirical measures of self-efficacy (antecedents

Figure 1 - The theory of planned behavior (Ajzen, 1991)

13

of perceived feasibility) assess beliefs that one can personally execute a given behaviour.”

(Krueger Jr. & Reilly, 2000, p. 419).

2.3.1.3. The Entrepreneurial Potential Model

Kruegel and Brazael (1994) developed a model of potential entrepreneur based on the

Theory of Planned Behaviour of Ajzen and the Entrepreneurial Event Model of Shapero.

The model defends that the beliefs and attitudes of potential entrepreneurs depend of

their perceived desirability and perceived feasibility. The perceived desirability refers to

the degree of attractiveness of a person towards a determined behaviour, in this case

becoming entrepreneur. The perceived feasibility refers to the level that the person

considers him or herself capable to perform a specific behaviour; specifically, it is the self-

perception to create a new business (Zampetakis, 2008).

In this model, the researchers consider that the two models overlap in a considerable

way. Shapero’s perceived desirability corresponds to Ajzen’s attitudes and Shapero’s

perceived feasibility corresponds to Ajzen’s perceived behavioural control (N. F. Krueger

& Brazeal, 1994).

So, it is possible to conclude that two critical components of the entrepreneurial

intention models are perceived desirability, the degree to which a person feels an

attraction towards becoming an entrepreneur and perceived feasibility, the sense of

capacity regarding the fulfilment of this behaviour (Krueger Jr. & Reilly, 2000). In other

words, factors influencing perceptions of the desirability and feasibility of starting a

business will influence the strength of entrepreneurial intent. However, in the case of

university students, recent studies indicate that students not facing important career

decisions may not be concerned with the feasibility of starting a business because the

event is too remote (Peterman & Kennedy, 2003).

Researchers also consider a third factor as influential for individual’s intentions, which

is a person’s self-efficacy. Self-efficacy has been found to influence considerably

entrepreneurial behaviour (Krueger Jr. & Reilly, 2000). Prior research indicates that not

enough is known about the effects of different entrepreneurship programs on students’

subsequent entrepreneurial behaviour, although participation in such programs does

seem to raise entrepreneurial intentions (Hamidi et al., 2008). Souitaris et al. (2007)

surveyed 124 science and engineering students enrolled in an entrepreneurship program

at one British and one French university, finding that the programs raised some

entrepreneurial intentions among the students. Specifically, it was found that many

students had experienced key moments of inspiration that drastically changed their “heart

and mind” and made them consider becoming entrepreneurs (Hamidi et al., 2008).

About this subject, Pinho and Gaspar (2012) concluded that, in each school analyzed

in their study, the courses that include in their programmes classes of entrepreneurship

and marketing have a higher percentage of students that would like to create their own

business, comparing to other courses results. The students taking the courses that

14

included these classes agreed that these programmes not only motivated them but also

prepared them to develop their own companies.

Surveys using different methodologies have been conducted among university

students in order to investigate the factors influencing their entrepreneurial intentions.

Surveys concentrate on the existence of certain personality traits (Louw, Eeden, Bosch, &

Venter, 2003) or on the importance of different demographic variables, such as age,

gender, levels of studies, role of parents etc. (Wang & Wong, 2004). Despite the

identification of significant connections among certain traits or demographic

characteristics of the individual with entrepreneurial intentions, surveys predictive capacity

is limited (Krueger Jr. & Reilly, 2000; Reynolds, 1997). In a research related to the career

patterns of the self-employed, Feldman and Bolino (2000) concluded that individuals with

a strong creativity anchor were motivated to become self-employed. However, Lee and

Wong (2004) concluded that there is not enough support for the hypothesis that among

research scientists and engineers, those with a strong creativity anchor would have

greater intentions to form a new business. In order to promote entrepreneurship, it is

crucial to investigate the factors that may affect an individual’s intentions towards new

business establishment.

2.4. Role of creativity on Entrepreneurship

Referring to creativity, it may be argued that the primary issue to slow down creativity

research is due to the lack of a clear and widely accepted definition for creativity, a matter

of debate for decades, since there are numerous models for creativity, which has

obstructed all efforts to measure the construct (Batey & Furnham, 2006). Since there is

such diversity in the interpretation of the field of creativity, it is not surprising to discover

that there have been a multitude of different ways suggested in which the construct can

be studied (Batey, 2012).

Despite the apparent confusion and contradictions implied by many of the definitions,

there does appear to be sufficient agreement in a few of them. The concept of creativity

takes in the notions of creation, synthesis and modification (Andriopoulos & Constantine,

2001). With regard to definitions, many researchers have adopted the ‘‘new and useful’’

definition of creativity, which suggests that a creative product is the one considered to be

novel or original and useful or adaptive (Mumford, 2003). How researchers interpret the

new and useful definition of creativity will determine how they assess the construct (Batey,

2012).

The earliest psychological studies of creativity focused upon intellectual factors.

Following this trend, researchers began to assess creativity from the perspective of

personality. Interest in cognitive psychology led to investigations of the creative problem-

solving process. There has also been considerable interest in the situational factors that

promote or inhibit creativity (Shalley & Gilson, 2004). Sternberg (2004) suggests the

amount of relevant knowledge individuals have at their disposal is one of the most

important links to creativity.

15

A number of personality constructs have been associated with creativity. However, the

line of inquiry concerning causal links between personality and creativity has been limited

and focused on a narrow range of personality characteristics. Several propositions have

been made concerning the ways personality influences creativity. Also, creativity is a

multi-facet unit where different domains pose different demands on individuals (James &

Asmus, 2001).

A few years ago, Binnewies, Ohly, and Sonnentag (2007) found that personal

increased commitment in the beginning of the creative process was positively related to

creativity as an outcome. Dollinger et. al (2005) drawing from previous research on

identity, argued that students who are self explorers in the use of information, that is,

actively seeking out and processing information, are more likely to have an increased

creative potential. According to the researchers, individuals that actively seek out

information internalize new and interesting possibilities for who they might become and

this is a way to enhance their creativity.

Arthur Koestler (1964), a controversial 20th century writer, journalist, and social

commentator, presented a theory. For his part, Koestler used the term bisociation to

characterize the creative capability. Interested in proving that individuals' behaviours were

not driven in the same way as the learned responses of animals, Koestler viewed

explaining creativity as a means of making the counter argument. He believed bisociation

occurred as the result of people taking two unrelated frames of reference and connecting

them in a new way (Koestler, 1964).

Although interested in creativity in general, Koestler's examples had nothing to do with

business. Entrepreneurial creativity, however, has been defined in a similar fashion. For

instance, Teresa Amabile (1997), a Harvard Business School professor known for her

research on the subject, described creativity as the generation of novel and appropriate

solutions to open-ended problems in any domain of human activity. In a business context,

this can occur along the dimensions of new businesses, new products, new processes,

new markets, and new ways of acquiring resources.

In recent years, there have been considerable efforts to understand the economics of

creativity and its role in driving business performance (Walton, 2003; Wu, McMullen,

Neubert, & Yi, 2008). Because of its close relation to innovation, it has become usual to

link creativity to entrepreneurship. In fact, in recent entrepreneurship studies, creativity is

an intrinsic factor in the development of a business idea. Fresh and useful ideas are the

support of entrepreneurship (Ward, 2004). Our ability to think creatively and imaginatively

is important enterprising skills to support decisions in uncertain business situations

(Lourenço & Jayawarna, 2011).

A number of themes can be drawn out when thinking about creativity learning activities

for innovation. Personality characteristics impact the creative process (Bull, Montgomery,

& Baloche, 1995), as for example confidence in performing specific tasks, including

creative tasks, and attitude towards risk (particularly relevant to the context of

entrepreneurship). It is not only self creativity but also team creativity that plays a crucial

role in innovation (Barakat, Boddington, & Vyakarnam, 2014).

16

Identifying and selecting the right opportunities for new businesses are among the most

important abilities of a successful entrepreneur (Ardichvili, Cardozo, & Ray, 2003). A

perspective established in previous entrepreneurship literature acknowledges that

entrepreneurship is not only about creative and innovative thinking (the art), but also

requires business competence and knowledge (the science). The scientific attributes are

used when organising and co-ordinating resources, meaning, running the business and

taking advantage of the business opportunity. The art (concerning the fresh ways of

thinking) is considered particularly useful in searching for business opportunities and,

thus, creating new business ideas and exploring business opportunities (Jack &

Anderson, 1999). However, it is not a categorical split, as both features may be visible in

any phase of the entrepreneurial process. The results obtained by Heinonen et al. (2011)

show that individual creativity is not directly associated with the viability of the business

idea. However, the influence of creativity on the viability of the business idea is totally

interceded by opportunity search strategies based either on creative or knowledge

acquisition approaches. Therefore, the researchers defend that, although creativity is

perceived as valuable in the business idea generation process in general, creativity has to

be complemented by opportunity search activities in order to generate viable business

ideas. In addition, both creative search strategies and knowledge acquisition strategies

are applicable for individuals in their search for viable business opportunities, although

creativity influences the viability of the business idea more effectively when conducted by

creative strategies than by ideas based on knowledge acquisition (Jarna Heinonen et al.,

2011).

Several studies have established a relationship between creativity and business

opportunity identification. In order to become successful, entrepreneurs need to create

valuable ideas for new goods or services, appealing to some particular market, and

having identified those potential opportunities, they must determine how to lead the

project to profitable reality. If entrepreneurs require capital to develop their new business

they may even need to bring up ideas for how to convince others of the value of the

project, as for example, a desirable new Internet application can be pictured but it does

not end there, it is necessary to implement the idea, convince others that it is worth

pursuing, and then advertise the application successfully (Ward, 2004). Creativity may

also be approached in the context of entrepreneurship as the ability to rapidly recognize

the association between problems and their alleged solutions by identifying non-obvious

associations or by moulding or reforming available resources in a non-obvious way

(Zampetakis & Moustakis, 2006). Therefore, creativity can be seen as an essential

element of entrepreneurship. As stated by Lee et al. (2004, p. 82) “entrepreneurship is a

form of creativity and can be labelled as business creativity or entrepreneurial creativity

because often new business are original and useful.”.

The boost of creativity is considered an important goal in higher education since

“individually and collectively we need to be creative to continually adapt and invent in an

ever-changing and increasingly complex world” (Jackson, Oliver, Shaw, & Wisdom, 2006,

p. 1). In other words, generating business ideas to exploit business opportunities and

nurturing the ability to engage in starting up a business are the core objectives of

17

entrepreneurship education and what differentiates it from more general and more

widespread business education programmes (Andrew Penaluna & Penaluna, 2008).

Entrepreneurs encounter many different types of challenges, being one of them the

capacity to generate or recognize ideas that have the potential to be developed into

appealing goods or services. Often there has to be a balance between novelty and

familiarity for ideas to become successful: new and different enough for consumers to pay

attention, but sufficiently familiar to not be misunderstood or rejected for being too

drastically different. According to Ward (2004, p. 173), “The creative cognition approach

views creative ideas as being the natural result of applying basic mental operations to

existing knowledge structures. The originality of a given idea, which is the balance

between its novelty and familiarity, will be determined by the processes employed and the

way in which existing knowledge is accessed. Such novelty can be exploited to develop

new product ideas or market niches”. Following all these ideas, managers and potential

entrepreneurs need to prepare themselves to be creative. The research developed by Ko

and Butler (2007) indicates that this is done in three ways. The entrepreneurs they

interviewed (1) built on their work experience and education, (2) used family, friends, and

acquaintances to get information about technological trends and changes, and (3)

remained alert and actively searched for new opportunities. The first attempt to investigate

the link between creativity and entrepreneurial behaviour involved a survey of

entrepreneurs, founding out that both the variety of information and the size of each one’s

knowledge base were important in identifying ideas. They stated their experience as

follows:

“In many cases, the managers we interviewed indicated that they actually prepared

themselves for discovery. During their period of preparation, they became immersed in

and obsessed with the issues and problems surrounding their field of interest. One way

this occurred was through knowledge gained from work experiences. Knowledge can also

be gained through a more direct path such as reading journals or magazines. Respondent

managers indicated that they read a lot, especially material they see as relevant to their

field, and use the Web to search for new information. Formal education was also

important. One manager noted: “My existing product is similar to what I did in my honours

project, but with modifications.” Different managers emphasized different sources as more

or less important, but all were actively engaged in building their base of knowledge and

saw this as an important factor in their ability to make discoveries.” (Ko & Butler, 2007, p.

367)

This research revealed that the way in which managers link apparently unrelated bits of

information is extremely important to creativity. They concluded that Chinese managers

could link disconnected pieces of information from different sources in ways that led to

new products or businesses. If, indeed, part of the creative process involves connecting

formally unassociated parts of information into new combinations, this knowledge can

serve as a potentially useful road for training entrepreneurs and students to be more

creative in ways that make entrepreneurial behaviour more possible.

There is a diversity of procedures through which people can modify, expand or

transform their stored knowledge. According to Ward (2004), one with special interest is

conceptual combination, a method through which a person can mentally merge ideas,

18

concepts or other forms of information that until then existed separately. One reason

conceptual combination can be particularly valuable in entrepreneurial creativity is that

combinations often represent specializations of their base concepts or head nouns, even

when no opposition in meaning is present. To use a non-creative example, a pocket watch

is a special type of watch with features that differentiate it from other types of watches”

(Ward, 2004, p. 178).

There is another procedure with a special connection to creativity called analogical

reasoning or transfer, which consists in apply or project structured knowledge from a

familiar field to a new or less familiar one. An example of this process is Rutherford’s use

of a solar system as a model for how the hydrogen atom was structured. The use of this

type of analogy as a way of communicating a new idea can be particularly relevant to

entrepreneurs. For instance, a potentially fruitful strategy can be using successful

products as the familiar domain and project to a new domain the significant relations

between the elements of that product (Ward, 2004).

These models can show that, in fact, creativity can be more than just problem solving.

The creative behaviour requires numerous steps. In general, easily defined problems are

not just given to innovators for them to solve right away. Doing something creative

frequently involves a construction, formulation, or definition of the problem or assignment

that the person wants to accomplish, it requires him or her to retrieve from memory or find

pertinent information, and to create and evaluate potential paths of action. Even though

recovery of existing knowledge is required to craft successful innovations, the way to

access that knowledge can differ. These differences can be used as indicators of how a

person have formulated or defined his or hers creative assignment, and these have the

potential to affect the originality of the resulting idea (Ward, 2004).

Concerning the measurement of creativity and innovation, many different methods

have been used to measure creativity and innovation (Barakat et al., 2014) and there are

a number of studies that use a range of techniques to test creativity (Taggar, 2002), like

studying individual and group creativity within an organizational background, testing

creativity through the use of case study questions (relevant to the background of

individuals) and analyzing by observational scale measures and written work scoring

(Barakat et al., 2014).

It has been discussed that the concept of self-efficacy can also be used as a promising

construct to understand creativity (Tierney & Farmer, 2002). Self-efficacy is defined as an

individual's own belief in his/her skills and abilities linked to a determined activity. Self -

efficacy has been researched extensively within social science disciplines but only more

recently within management and entrepreneurial research. As a method of measurement,

it has been employed in only a few studies. Given the clear links between self-efficacy and

entrepreneurship, and in particular between creative self-efficacy and entrepreneurial

education, it is clearly a powerful concept that can be used to better understand creative

learning activities in entrepreneurial education and enhance teaching within this area

(Barakat et al., 2014).

There is little doubt that creativity is a complex enough phenomenon that the structures

and processes underlying the generation of new ideas will not be enough to explain it

19

fully. Clearly, interactive models are needed to provide a complete theoretical frame. This

is no less true for entrepreneurial creativity than for artistic or scientific creativity. If we

view successful entrepreneurs as those ‘‘individuals who identify opportunities and start

new companies to develop them’’ (Baron, 2000, p. 15), then they will need to be able to

do more than simply generate useful new ideas. Likewise, if we view entrepreneurial

creativity as ‘‘the generation and implementation of novel, appropriate ideas to establish a

new venture’’ (Amabile, 1997, p. 20), then a range of internal and external factors become

relevant to the task.

Business managers have a much more specific interest in creativity because they see

it as a link to innovation, which in turn leads to new businesses, better products, and a

stronger competitive position for existing businesses (Ko & Butler, 2007). Yet

entrepreneurship educators still struggle to explain how to assess creativity, idea

generation, innovation and opportunity recognition in their field (Penaluna & Penaluna,

2009).

While many scholars acknowledge creativity as an essential aspect of

entrepreneurship and most managers encourage creativity (Ward, 2004), very little is

known about how the process works, especially with respect to recognizing

entrepreneurial opportunities. As firms in less developed and newly developing economies

attempt to move from product imitation toward product development and innovation,

creativity is likely to become an increasingly important maintenance key to those who

already hold a competitive advantage (Ko & Butler, 2007).

2.5. Entrepreneurial Creativity and Entrepreneurial Intentions

A factor that previously has not been considered in intention-based models is creativity,

but recent studies have shown that creativity (together with prior entrepreneurial

experiences) is positively associated with entrepreneurial intentions (Hamidi et al., 2008).

Therefore, assessments of creativity have attracted considerable attention in the context

of entrepreneurship education (Carey & Matlay, 2010).

DeTienne and Chandler (2004) have provided empirical evidence by examining the

effectiveness of creativity enhancing training in the support of entrepreneurship education.

Their findings indicate that creativity enhancing training contributed to significant

improvements in university students’ ability to think creatively. Their research also found

that students’ ability to think creatively prior to their training had a positive relationship with

post-training outcome. In addition, they found that creativity training will lead to

improvements in student’s ability to identify business opportunities and their

innovativeness. Although this work has enlightened our understanding of the effectiveness

of creativity training, it provides limited insights to the specific relationship between

creative ability and training outcomes, including learning potential and future learning

intentions. More importantly, their work fails to discuss the methodological and

20

pedagogical issues related to designing effective creativity training programmes to support

entrepreneurship education (Lourenço & Jayawarna, 2011).

The results of the study of Zampetakis (2008) show that perceived desirability

intervenes in the effect of proactivity and creativity on entrepreneurial intentions. The

mediation model provided evidence that proactive students (i.e. those who actively seek

out and process information and take the initiative to improve current circumstances or

create new ones) and creative students (i.e. those who produce new and useful ideas)

have higher scores of intention to start their own business because they perceive the

status of being an entrepreneur as desirable.

It has also been noted in the literature that the perception of the individuals enterprising

skills, in particular the creative potential, have direct and indirect impact on intentions to

business start-up (Liñán, 2008). The study conducted by Zampetakis and Moustakis

(2006) has found evidence that engineering students’ self-perceived creativity is

associated with increased levels of entrepreneurial intent, implying that the link between

creativity and entrepreneurial intentions may be closer than is currently thought. Their

study confirmed a positive relationship between creative thinking and entrepreneurial

intentions. This evidence points out the significance of nurturing enterprising skill through

entrepreneurship education and, in particular, points to the importance of developing

training programmes that aim to build up creative ability of nascent entrepreneurs

(Lourenço & Jayawarna, 2011). The study of Zampetakis and Moustakis (2006) also

supports previous suggestions that individuals with strong creativity anchor have a need

to create something new and the argument of Feldman and Bolino (2000) that individuals

with a strong creativity anchor are motivated to become self-employed.

Various entrepreneurial programmes now include learning activities designed to make

the student think and act more creatively. This increasing number of creative learning

activities now being taught created the need to better understand what impact they are

having and if they are satisfying the theoretical concern of making individuals more

creative, innovative and entrepreneurial. Creative Activities in Learning for Innovation

(CAL4INO), a European EU funded project, investigates the role of creative learning

activities to improve innovation within the context of entrepreneurship. The basis behind

this is that people as teams develop meaningful innovations by merging designs,

technology and business through creative activities, producing diverse perspectives,

experiences and skills. To study and measure such activities, the instruments need to be

flexible enough to measure any creative learning activity which objective is enhancing

innovation and, by extension, entrepreneurial activity (Barakat et al., 2014).

The most common method of measurement chosen is entrepreneurial self-efficacy

(ESE). ESE stands among the important personal factors that influence the abilities and

chances of entrepreneurs, as it is a prerequisite for these groups to persist in their daily

activities and in the achievement of their goals. ESE has been receiving an increasing

amount of attention in the literature since it has been identified as having a role in new

venture creation and is seen as an important antecedent to entrepreneurial action (Chen,

Greene, & Crick, 1998).

21

2.6. Research questions

The decision to become an entrepreneur can be considered as voluntary and

conscious (Krueger Jr. & Reilly, 2000). Consequently, it is important to analyze how the

decision process takes place. In this sense, the development of entrepreneurial intentions

would be the first step in this process (S. H. Lee & Wong, 2004). Thus, determining the

impact of entrepreneurship education on entrepreneurial intentions is of important interest

to understand this process (Liñán, 2004). Also, since creativity plays a major role in

opportunity search strategies, as well as on business idea development (Jarna Heinonen

et al., 2011), it is relevant to understand how to boost creative thinking and creative

behaviour.

Of all the models of entrepreneurial intention, one that has been repeatedly applied,

providing validated and empirically tested results is the Theory of Planned Behaviour

(TPB) (Fayolle et al., 2006). For example, the researchers conducted by Kolvereid

(1996b), Krueger et al. (2000) and Liñán and Chen (Liñán & Chen, 2009) demonstrated

the effectiveness of using the TPB while studying entrepreneurial intent. The TPB can

measure the development of intention through entrepreneurial education, that is, how a

programme can influence participants regarding their entrepreneurial behaviour (Fayolle

et al., 2006). According to this theory, the intention to exhibit a specific behaviour is

influenced by three variables: attitude towards behaviour, perceived behaviour control and

social norms. In addition for this study, it was decided to also investigate creativity and its

impact on entrepreneurial intention.

Figure 2 - Entrepreneurial Intention Conceptual Model

22

The students engaged in this study are higher education students attending an

entrepreneurship programme during one semester. Since this is an ex-ante post-ante

research, it is expected that, by the end of the semester, there will be a higher level of

attitude towards the behaviour, perceived behaviour control and social norms than in the

beginning of the semester. This is due to the association established between attending

an entrepreneurship programme and entrepreneurial intention (Liñán & Chen, 2009; Lorz,

2011; Souitaris et al., 2007). This research aims to understand entrepreneurship

education has any positive relationship to attitudes towards behaviour, social norms and

perceived behaviour control. Also, a construct for creativity was added in order to

comprehend if an entrepreneurship programme can have any type of impact on the

development of students’ creativity towards the development of ideas. According to Martin

and Wilson (2014), creativity leads to discoveries and not the other way around, thus it is

expected that creativity influence entrepreneurial intention.

According to the proposed objective for this study and having as basis the model of

entrepreneurial intention previously discussed, it is intended to answer the following

research questions:

Question I – To what extent does Entrepreneurship Education affects student’s attitude

towards behaviour, perceived behaviour control, social norms, entrepreneurial intention

and creativity.

In this thesis, the impact of an entrepreneurship education programme it is based on

the theory of planned behaviour. However, one more construct was added and is also

being tested.

As previously mentioned, several authors have obtained positive results when applying

the TPB in the evaluation of an entrepreneurship programme. However, not all elements

of the theory reveal the same importance, especially when considered in the evaluation of

a programme of entrepreneurship education (Fayolle et al., 2006). Regarding creativity,

since generating business ideas to exploit business opportunities and nurturing the ability

to engage in starting up a business are two of the main goals of entrepreneurship

education (Andrew Penaluna & Penaluna, 2008), it is of extreme importance to

understand the real impact that an entrepreneurship programme can have on students’

creativity.

Question II – Considering the attendance of the subject of entrepreneurship, to what

extent can entrepreneurial intention be explained by student’s attitude towards

behaviour, perceived behaviour control, social norms and creativity.

In the area of entrepreneurship, the theory of planned behaviour has been widely

applied by a growing number of researchers, such as Kolvereid (1996b), Liñán et al.

(2009) and Lüthje and Franke (2003), all confirming the positive relation between attitude

towards behaviour, perceived behaviour control and social norms upon entrepreneurial

intention. In what concerns creativity, it has been found a positive relationship between it

23

and entrepreneurial intentions (Hamidi et al., 2008), but there is the necessity of more

positive results to confirm this. This study aims to understand the role that each of these

factors play in students’ entrepreneurial intention.

24

.

25

Chapter 3: Methodology

3.1. Investigation goals

There is a growing interest from researchers regarding the connection between

entrepreneurship and education in general and entrepreneurship education in particular

(Fayolle et al., 2006). It has become critical to understand the real impact of

entrepreneurship education on students, mainly the possibility of increasing their

entrepreneurial intention, since it represents an important factor for the existence of

entrepreneurial behaviour (Liñán, 2004). According to Krueger et. al. (2000) the decision

to become an entrepreneur is taken voluntarily and consciously and, therefore,

intentionally. Consequently, this decision is presumed to be planned and thus preceded

by an intention to make it (Davidsson, 1995).

According to the more general models, entrepreneurial intentions are usually

considered to be based on a person’s attitude toward entrepreneurship, established social

norms attached to entrepreneurship, and the level of self-efficacy (Hamidi et al., 2008).

Creativity is a factor considered to be of extreme importance for various areas of

entrepreneurship, since the creative application of ideas is a fundamental part of

entrepreneurial activities (Walton, 2003), but is an aspect that, until recently, had not been

taken into consideration in intention-based models. Since literature is now suggesting that

creative individuals are more likely to engage in entrepreneurial behaviour (Ward, 2004) it

is of major interest to analyse if there is a connection between entrepreneurship education

and this new factor that is creativity, as well as its possible impact on entrepreneurial

intentions.

According to Fayolle (2004) there are major differences between students who have

attended entrepreneurship courses and those who have not. Thus, one of the main goals

of this investigation is to analyze the impact of entrepreneurship education higher

education students’ on their entrepreneurial intentions as well as their creativity. For this, it

is intended to verify, for the students that attended the entrepreneurship programme

during the second semester of the school year 2013/2014, if there are modifications of

their entrepreneurship intentions and their creativity, result of attending this programme. It

is important to refer the complexity of this evaluation since it is difficult to identify the most

appropriate method of measurement and also define the factors that are correlated with

changing someone’s intentions.

3.2. Research framework

Following the objective previously mentioned, two perspectives will be taken into

consideration throughout this research: firstly, it will be evaluated the impact of

entrepreneurship education on the students’ attitude, perceived behaviour control, social

26

norms, entrepreneurship intention and creativity, and secondly, if entrepreneurial

intentions can be explained by students’ attitude, perceived behaviour control, social

norms and creativity.

In this dissertation was used a research method to analyse a specific phenomena, test

specific hypotheses and examine specific relationships. The research is formal and

structured, based on representative samples, and the data obtained can be subjected to

quantitative analysis (Malhotra & Birks, 2006). This type of analysis is used to identify and

present data, indicators and visible tendencies, that in this particular research result from

the observation of the students who attended the course of entrepreneurship.

To comprehend the impact of entrepreneurship education programmes on student’s an

ex-ante and ex-post testing design was used. The base instrument of the investigation

relies on the conduct of surveys by handing to students a pre-questionnaire at the

beginning of the entrepreneurship programme and, at the end, a post-questionnaire (that

corresponded to same questionnaire of the beginning). The use of questionnaires to

collect data had the advantage of being an approach that is extremely structured and that

allows the controllability of large data samples (Lorz, 2011). A paired sample method was

used to match the answers at the beginning and at the end of the course. The necessity to

capture the development and changes in student’s entrepreneurial intention, arising from

the attendance to the subject of entrepreneurship, led to the appliance of different

measurements at distinct moments. Therefore, the proposed method allows the analysis

of the evolution over time, instead of studying in one moment of time. Once the

questionnaires were handled to the same class at the beginning and at the end, it is

considered that the samples (in the two moments of time) are relatively homogeneous and

thus comparable. It was also used a control group to compare the results between those

who attended the entrepreneurship course and to achieve more reliable conclusions.

3.2.1. The Sample

According to Lorz (2011), although school students are usually more used in this type

of studies, from a perspective orientated towards economy and venture creation,

university students can be a more interesting target group since they are closer to make a

decision regarding the start of their career, whether it is on their own or on behalf of

others.

For this research, the criteria used to obtain the samples was that the individuals had to

be university students taking, for the first time, the course of entrepreneurship and a

control group who had never had this subject before. Thus, the population comprise

students of Portuguese higher education institutions enrolled in the second semester of

the school year 2013/2014 attending the course of entrepreneurship and it is divided in

two independent samples: the sample of students who attended the course of

entrepreneurship (whether by option or by obligation) and a control sample of students

who did not had the subject of entrepreneurship, part of a class who attended the class of

Marketing at the Department of Economics, Management and Industrial Engineering

27

(DEGEI) of the University of Aveiro. After data collection, there were 486 students on the

experimental group, 284 students who responded the questionnaire at the beginning of

the semester and 202 responded it at the end of the semester, and 85 students on the

control group, 47 students who answered the pre-questionnaire and 38 who answered the

post-questionnaire. This variation of numbers means that not all of the students who

answered the pre-questionnaire also answered the post-questionnaire. With that said, the

sample would be reduced to 113 students who had their answers properly paired, during

statistical analysis, of which 17 students correspond to the control group.

3.2.2. Questionnaire development

Prior to starting the development of the questionnaire, was conducted a literature

review in order to find the best measuring instruments of entrepreneurial intention and

creativity.

Regarding entrepreneurial intention, various articles were researched in order to

understand which model, scales and methods are most commonly used to measure it

(Kolvereid, 1996a, 1996b; Lorz, 2011; Souitaris et al., 2007). The construct of

entrepreneurial self-efficacy was considered for the questionnaire (Chen et al., 1998);

however, the lack of consensus regarding the entrepreneurial self-efficacy being a better

scale to measure the entrepreneurial intention than the TPB was the major reason for not

being considered.

It was visible that the literature had very well defined scales for this problem: the self-

employment scales of Kolvereid (Kolvereid, 1996a, 1996b) were frequently used in

studies which had entrepreneurial measurements as their objective and, more recently,

the scale developed by Liñán and Chen (2009) validating a cross cultural research based

on the TPB, which has proved to be more robust, since it is empirically tested, recognized

and used by other authors (such as Lorz, 2011; Luthje & Franke, 2003). Also significant

and constant in the literature was the TPB as a method of measurement, since it is

commonly accepted as a reliable way of testing entrepreneurial intentions. This said, the

theory of planned behaviour, along with its constructs, was the eligible theoretical concept

chosen for this research and, consequently, the instrument used for the constructs of TPB

was adopted from Liñán & Chen’s (2009), being applied to measure the development of

entrepreneurial intention resulting from the entrepreneurship education programme.

Regarding creativity, there are several different ways to assess creativity, including

experiments (Ward, 2004) and assessment of creative tasks based on observations and

various tests. It is obvious that the multifaceted nature of creativity makes it necessary to

use an approach based on the combination of different methods, addressing a larger

diversification of criteria for creativity in order to capture its many aspects and make

findings more strong (Furnham & Bachtiar, 2008). However, to obtain more specific and

reliable results, without having to use different tests with different scales, it was chosen

the self-rating of creativity test developed by Batey (2007).

28

The questionnaire is structured in two distinct parts. In the first part, some questions

were carried out regarding the socio-demographic characteristics of students, such as

age, gender, university, academic degree, field of study and work experience. After this, a

question was placed about whether or not the student was attending the course of

entrepreneurship (to distinguish the experimental sample of the control sample). In terms

of the second part of the questionnaire, it was divided in four groups of questions

regarding the TPB – attitude towards behaviour, perceived behaviour control, social

norms and entrepreneurial intention. The scales for each group of items were based on a

seven point Likert-type scale, so the items regarding each construct were evaluated by

each subject in a scale of 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree), indicating their level

of agreement with each statement.

It was also handed the creativity test as a supplement. All students completing the

questionnaire also completed the creativity test. As previously mentioned, the group of

questions of corresponded to the self-rating of creativity test, a measuring instrument

developed by Batey (2007), were the score for creativity was composed by 11 items

referring to personal attributes and the students were required to rate themselves in

comparison with other people, using a Likert-type scale, from 1 (less) to 10 (more),

indicating that the student considered himself to be less or more that attribute than others.

It is also important to note that the data collection was conducted during the second

semester of the school year 2013/2014 through a mixed method that included handing the

tests in person during class and through online way, which was done by each teacher

lecturing the class of entrepreneurship in the different universities (University of Aveiro,

Graduate School of Technology and Management of Águeda, University of Porto and of

Minho).

29

16

32

22

15 13

7 3 1 1 1 2

19 20 21 22 23 24 25 29 31 34 51

Age

Frequency

Chapter 4: Analysis and Discussion of Results

Data analysis was performed using the IBM SPSS Statistics 20 data analysis software.

Lorz’s research (2011) was the basis for selection of statistical tests and how these have

been adopted sequentially in this dissertation. First, a characterization of the sample was

conducted, using descriptive statistics. The second step consisted on conducting an

analysis of the variables and the validity and reliability of scales. For the analysis of the

variables, it was checked if the data was collected from a normal population and for the

reliability of scales was used Cronbach’s α. Finally, the hypotheses were tested through

inferential statistics.

4.1. Sample characterization

As previously mentioned, the initial sample was composed by 571 students, of which

486 corresponded to the experimental group and 85 to the control group. Since the

sample is divided in the group of students that answered the pre-questionnaire and the

group of students that answered the post-questionnaire, it was necessary to pair the

answers from the beginning of the semester with the answers from the end for each

student, building a paired sample. Given that not all students answered the questionnaire

at the two points of time, the final sample was reduced to 113 students, where 96

correspond to the experimental group and 17 to the control group. The following section

presents a characterization of the paired sample (113 students).

The age gap of sample goes from 19 years old to 51 years old. Age average of

participants was 22 years, approximately, whereas the mode was 20, which is constituted

by 32 students (28.3% of the sample). Figure 2 shows both the frequency and the

percentages of the age distribution.

Figure 3 - Sample characterization by age

30

The sample is constituted by 78 female students,

representing 69% of the sample, against 35 male

students, that refer to 31% of the sample, as shown in

Figure 3.

Regarding the higher education institutions of which

the students from the sample are part of, although the

questionnaires were forwarded to six different

institutions, after pairing the answers from the pre-

questionnaire with the ones from the post-questionnaire,

only remained within the sample students from the

University of Aveiro, represented by 77.9% (88 students),

and from the Graduate School of Technology and

Management of Águeda (ESTGA), represented by 22.1%

(25 students).

The majority of students is attending a bachelor’s degree. Within the sample, 82

students are still finishing their degree while 31 students are enrolled on a master’s

degree, thus 72.6% and 27.4% respectively.

There are also students from different fields of study: 47 students from social sciences

and humanities, 40 students from exact sciences and engineering, 23 students from life

and health sciences, and 3 students from natural sciences. On Figure 4 is shown the

percentage division.

Among the sample there were students enrolled in several different courses, which

included economics, marketing, business management, innovation management, tourism,

management and industrial engineering, biology, biotechnology, biomedical sciences, civil

engineering, chemistry, new communication technologies, applied languages and

languages and business relations.

Figure 4 - Sample characterization by gender

20%

35% 3%

42%

Fields of study

Life and health sciences

Exact sciences and engineering

Natural Sciences

Social sciences and humanities

Figure 5 - Sample characterization by field of study

31%

69%

Gender

Masculine Feminine

31

52

28 26

1 6

None Internship Part-time Full-time (less than a

year)

Full-time (more than

a year)

Professional experience

The questionnaire also asked of the student was a regular student or a working

student. From this question it was possible to verify that the sample is composed mainly

by full-time students, since only 4 students (3.5%) were working and studying at the same

time.

Concerning the professional experience, there are also some differences within the

sample. The majority of students never had a working experience, represented by 46% of

the sample, while 24.8% had participated in internships and 23% in part-time jobs, and the

rest had already worked in full-time jobs, 0.9% for less than one year and 5.3% for more

than one year.

4.2. Selection Bias

Like previously mentioned, the sample used on this research comprises students from

different fields of study. Thus, although all the students are enrolled in an

entrepreneurship subject, for the exception of the control group, there are students taking

the course because it is part of their major programme, as for example the business

students, and others who chose to take it, such as the health sciences students.

According to Lorz (2011) research, this may result in a selection bias of participants in the

experimental groups with higher average values in comparison to the control group.

To test if there are significant differences between the means of both groups it was

performed independent samples t-test, obtaining Levene’s Test for Equality of Variances,

which result will allow the t-test to be interpreted. The results obtained indicated no

significant differences in variance between the groups for all the constructs, so the t-test

needs was adjusted for interpretation of equal variances assumed. As shown in Table 1,

the test indicates that the difference between means is not significant and so we can

consider for the following tests that no statistically significant difference exists between the

two groups (Acton, Miller, Maltby, & Fullerton, 2009).

Figure 6 - Sample characterization by professional experience

32

N Mean Levene's Test

Equality of Means

Experimental group

Control group

Experimental group

Control group

F

t df p-value

Start

ATB 96 17 4,708 3,775 0,205 3,384 111 0,001

PBC 96 17 2,951 2,824 1,180 0,456 111 0,649

SN 96 17 4,663 4,000 0,370 1,911 111 0,059

EI 96 17 3,686 3,206 0,208 1,232 111 0,220

C 96 17 5,770 5,765 0,001 0,017 111 0,987

End

ATB 96 17 4,556 3,814 0,302 2,187 111 0,031

PBC 96 17 3,741 2,941 0,340 3,014 111 0,003

SN 96 17 4,545 4,000 0,185 1,567 111 0,120

EI 96 17 3,790 3,020 0,356 1,939 111 0,055

C 96 17 5,948 5,588 1,007 0,806 111 0,422

Table 1 – Independent Samples t-test

4.3. Normal distribution test

In order to verify if the variables are appropriate for analysis it was first performed a test

to check for missing values and to analyze if the variables are normally distributed.

For the verification of normal distribution were used the measurements of shape

skewness and kurtosis to test the constructs. Skewness refers to the degree of skew -

lateral deviation - of a distribution. Thus, a perfect normal distribution will represented by a

value of skewness of zero, given that there is no skew, and as far away from zero the

greater the level of asymmetry of the distribution. If there exists a negative value, data is

negatively skewed. Kurtosis measures the flatness of the distribution, so positive values

indicate a peaked distribution and negative values indicate that the distribution is flatter. In

both cases, values between -2 to 2 can be considered acceptable for a significance level

of 0.05 and so we can assume that the data follow a normal distribution and is acceptable

for parametric tests (Lorz, 2011).

33

Table 2 presents the values for skewness, that are between -0.294 and 0.473, and for

kurtosis, which are between -0.754 and -0.102, indicating a normal distribution, and so it

can be considered that the data was collected from a normal population.

Mean Std. Deviation

Skewness Kurtosis

Start

ATB 4,708 1,043 0,015 -0,248

PBC 2,951 1,086 0,473 -0,445

SN 4,663 1,330 -0,254 -0,102

EI 3,686 1,463 0,404 -0,672

C 5,771 1,365 -0,208 -0,315

End

ATB 4,556 1,270 -0,294 -0,641

PBC 3,741 1,018 0,170 -0,557

SN 4,545 1,317 -0,034 -0,754

EI 3,790 1,477 0,275 -0,731

C 5,948 1,657 0,113 -0,235

Table 2 - Normal distribution test: skewness and kurtosis

4.4. Multicollinearity test

Stepwise regression and multiple regression are complicated by the presence of

multicollinearity (Malhotra & Birks, 2006). Thus, to examine the collinearity of the

independent variable, before trying to regress the independent variables on the dependent

variable, tests for multicollinearity were carried out. Through SPSS software, using its

specific collinearity diagnostics tool, it can be achieved two measures of collinearity:

tolerance and variation inflation factor (VIF). The first measures the correlation between

variables, varying from 0 to 1, where 0 is an indicator of a very strong relation between the

independent variables analyzed. When tolerance is low, the existence of multicollinearity

is a possibility (Bryman & Cramer, 2011). The second measure is an alternative indicator

of collinearity and can be analyzed as follows: the higher the value of VIF the stronger the

34

relationship between independent variables. Nonetheless, there are no formal values to

indicate multicollinearity. Summarizing, a high value of tolerance and a low value of VIF

are good indicators of the non-existence of multicollinearity. The measures were

calculated and are presented in Table 3. It is verifiable a high value for tolerance, since all

variables are close to 1, and a low value for VIF, since the higher value is 1.282, and

therefore it can be assumed that multicollinearity is not present (Lorz, 2011).

Coefficients (a)

Unstandardized Coefficients

Standardized Coefficients

Collinearity Statistics

Model B

Std. Error

Beta t Sig. Tolerance VIF

1 (Constant) 0,044 0,125 0,353 0.725

Atitute 0,383 0,107 0,330 3,565 0,001 0,882 1,134

PBC 0,162 0,095 0,163 1,709 0,091 0,827 1,209

SN 0,182 0,078 0,231 2,343 0,021 0,780 1,282

Creativity 0,067 0,072 0,086 0,933 0,353 0,891 1,123

(a) Dependent Variable: Entrepreneurial Intention.

Table 3 - Multicollinearity test

4.5. Reliability Test

All constructs used in this research, for the exception of creativity, are multiple-item

scales. Therefore, the internal consistency reliability should be tested for each group of

items. According to Bryman and Cramer (2011), in multiple-item scales the internal

reliability is particularly important, since it indicates if the scale is measuring a distinct idea

and consequently if the items composing the scale are internally consistent or not.

On this research, it will be used the common method to verify internal reliability:

Cronbach’s alpha coefficient (α). To guarantee high reliability and viability, scales must be

selected from articles recognized for their quality of impact according to evaluation

rankings and thus for this research they will be based on Liñan et al. (2009). The

Cronbach’s alpha coefficient varies from 0 to 1, being a value between 0.6 and 0.8 usually

considered an indicator of satisfactory internal consistency reliability and above 0.8 of

good internal consistency reliability (Malhotra & Birks, 2006). In addition, it is suggested

that if numerous factors exist, the calculation should be carried out separately: when the

questionnaire has subscales it is normal to calculate Cronbach’s alpha for each dimension

rather than for the measure as a whole (Acton et al., 2009).

35

As previously mentioned, this research uses multiple-item scales for each construct,

apart from creativity, which is a one-item scale. In Table 4 is presented the Cronbach’s

alpha coefficients for all scales. For the exception of attitude towards behaviour that

presents a value of 0.737, which is considered satisfactory, all other scales present α>0.8,

meaning good internal consistency reliability of the scales, so consequently it is

acceptable to assume that all these scales are internally consistent.

N of Items

Mean

Cronbach's Alpha

Constructs

Attitude Towards Behaviour (Liñán & Chen, 2009) 6 -0,153 0,737

Perceived Behavioural Control (Liñán & Chen, 2009) 6 0,790 0,858

Social Norms (Liñán & Chen, 2009) 3 -0,118 0,896

Entrepreneurial Intention (Liñán & Chen, 2009) 6 0,104 0,862

Table 4 - Reliability test: Cronbach’s alpha

4.6. Testing the research questions

Question I – To what extent does Entrepreneurship Education affects

student’s attitude towards behaviour, perceived behaviour control,

social norms, entrepreneurial intention and creativity.

To analyze the impact of an entrepreneurship education program on students’

attitudes, perceived behaviour control, social norms, entrepreneurial intention and

creativity, a paired samples t-test was carried out and interpreted. For this test, which is

applied to matched pairs, data can be collected in more than one points in time, where

individuals are asked the same question at a starting point and over a period of time, as,

for example, when comparing before and after values in an experiment (Acton et al.,

2009). This is the type of case in analysis in this research. To verify the impact of

attending an entrepreneurship subject, questionnaires were delivered to students at two

different points in time: before taking the subject and after.

Although this research is based on Lorz (2011), following the investigation of

Oosterbeek et al. (2010), and he uses the difference between scores at the end and at the

start of the experiment, for both the experimental and the control group, to calculate the

impact of entrepreneurship education between the two, the absence of a substantial

control group led to the removal of the control groups and, consequently, the use of a

simpler methodology.

36

Therefore, means for each variable were obtained and subtracted, in order to display

mean differences from the pre-questionnaire (start) to the post-questionnaire (end). These

results are displayed in Table 5, through the values of the mean differences, standard

deviation, t-statistic, degrees of freedom and p-values.

Mean Std. Deviation

t df p-value

Start

ATB Start-End 0,153 0,906 1,652 95 0,102

PBC Start-End -0,790 1,059 -7,308 95 0,000

SN Start-End 0,118 1,331 0,869 95 0,387

EI Start-End -0,104 1,050 -0,972 95 0,334

C Start-End -0,177 1,353 -1,282 95 0,203

Table 5 - T-test for paired samples

The results presented on Table 5 indicate that there is no significant change for attitude

towards behaviour, social norms, entrepreneurial intention and creativity. The only

construct that presents a statistically significant change throughout the experiment is

perceived behaviour control (for PBC, p-value<0.05). Thus, it is valid to affirm that, after

attending an entrepreneurship programme, students show a higher perceived behavioural

control and so entrepreneurship education affects positively the PBC of students. For the

rest of the constructs there are no significant differences between the values at the end

and start of the experiment, so it should be considered the null hypothesis, meaning that

entrepreneurship education does not affect student’s attitude towards behaviour, social

norms, entrepreneurial intention and creativity. In Lorz’s (2011) study similar results were

found, with PBC being the only construct that changed significantly.

According to Fayolle et al. (2006), the control perception is connected to the ability of

the students to acquire new knowledge and, by acquiring relevant theoretical knowledge

in entrepreneurship and business management area, students feel more able to control

the behaviour, thus, considering themselves capable of starting a business. Following this,

Matlay’s (2008) research concluded that, by attending an entrepreneurship programme,

higher education students acquired bigger skills and knowledge to pursue an

entrepreneurial career. This does not mean that the students have attitude to go ahead

with, or intention to do it, or creativity enough to develop a new productive business, which

can explain the small differences for those variables, and for the social norms it can be

considered that they are more influenced by the social environment where the student is

involved than by the entrepreneurship programme.

37

Question II – Considering the attendance of the subject of

entrepreneurship, to what extent can entrepreneurial intention be

explained by student’s attitude towards behaviour, perceived behaviour

control, social norms and creativity.

In order to test question number two and understand which constructs explain

entrepreneurial intention, a multiple linear regression analysis was conducted. Multiple

regression indicates which variables explain variance (not shared with other independent

variables) in the single dependent variable (Acton et al., 2009), that in this research is

entrepreneurial intention.

Two hierarchical regression models were calculated in order to test this research

question. For both models will be used entrepreneurial intention at the end of the

experiment as dependent variable. Model 1 uses the values of the control variables and

independent variables at the start of the semester and correlate them with the dependent

variable. For model 2 are the used control variables and independent variables at the end

of the semester.

In step 1 of the first regression model, are regressed the control variables: age (scale),

gender (0/1, female/male), field of study (0/1, social sciences/sciences) and professional

experience (0/1, inexperienced/experienced). In step 2 it was done the same but including

the independent constructs of the theory of planned behaviour: attitude towards the

behaviour (ATB), perceived behaviour control (PBC) and social norms (SN), for the

questionnaire handed in the beginning of the semester. In step 3, steps 1 and 2 were

repeated and was added the new construct of creativity, also from the pre-questionnaire.

Regarding model 2, only two hierarchical steps of multiple regression are undertaken.

In step 1 are again regressed the same control variables (age, gender, field of study and

professional experience) but together with the independent variables attitude towards the

behaviour (ATB), perceived behaviour control (PBC) and social norms (SN) from the

questionnaire handed at the end of the semester. In step 2, step 1 is repeat but is also

included the construct of creativity, also from the post-questionnaire.

Table 6 presents the results of the multiple regression and can help understand the

relationship between the constructs and entrepreneurial intention. As it shows, in model 1,

when considered the control variables by themselves, age, gender, field of study and

working experience of the students explain 2.6% of entrepreneurial intention, but none of

the constructs presents a value statistically significant. When in step 2 are also considered

the independent variables ATB, PBS and SN, the influence of the control variables

together with the independent variables increases to 43.5%. It is also observable that

attitude towards behaviour and perceived behaviour control at the beginning of the

experiment are the constructs which explain entrepreneurial intention the most and significantly predict entrepreneurial intention. In step 3, when adding the variable of

creativity at the beginning of the semester to the prior mentioned variables, the totality of

variables explain 44%, so there is a small increase from step 2. This small difference is in

accordance with the p-value (0.391) obtained for the construct of creativity, which

indicates that it does not significantly predict entrepreneurial intention, with ATB and PBC

at the beginning of semester continuing go be the constructs which explain


38

Model 1 (EI End) Model 2 (EI End)

Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 1 Step 2

Step 1 Beta Sig. Beta Sig. Beta Sig. Beta Sig. Beta Sig.

Age 0,069 0,520 -0,050 0,581 -0,057 0,532 -0,052 0,344 -0,056 0,293

Gender 0,125 0,233 0,097 0,239 0,087 0,294 0,001 0,983 -0,003 0,947

Field of study

-0,034 0,742 0,028 0,741 0,018 0,835 -0,044 0,421 -0,067 0,216

Professional experience 0,036 0,740 0,058 0,493 0,059 0,486 0,048 0,376 0,055 0,298

Step 2 Beta Sig. Beta Sig.

ATB Start 0,515 0,000 0,501 0,000

PBC Start 0,272 0,007 0,274 0,006

SN Start -0,006 0,950 -0,017 0,860

Step 3 Beta Sig.

Creativity Start 0,074 0,391

Step 4 Beta Sig. Beta Sig.

ATB End 0,618 0,000 0,606 0,000

PBC End 0,224 0,002 0,211 0,002

SN End 0,177 0,007 0,150 0,020

Step 5 Beta Sig.

Creativity End 0,133 0,017

R 0,160 0,660 0,663 0,876 0,884

R2 0,026 0,435 0,440 0,766 0,782

Table 6 - Multiple Regression

In model 2, when observing the results from step 1, it can be verified that the control

variables together with the independent variables attitude towards behaviour, perceived

behaviour control and social norms at the end of the semester explain 76.6% of

entrepreneurial intention. The three independent variables from TPB, on the contrary from

the control variables, present p-value<0.05, meaning they significantly predict

39

entrepreneurial intention. Is also verified an augmentation of percentage when comparing

with the equivalent step on model 1, indicating that there is a difference between the same

variables in the beginning of the semester and the end of the semester concerning to what

extent they explain entrepreneurial intention. In step 2, it was added the variable creativity

at the end of the semester to the variables used in step 1 of model 2. In this step the

ensemble of variables explain entrepreneurial intention by 78.2%, more 1.6% than in the

previous step. The constructs of TPB continue to present statistically significant p-values

as well as creativity, with a p-value of 0.017, meaning all four variables significantly predict


In what concerns independent variables tested in the two models of research, it is

visible that attitude explains entrepreneurial intention in the beginning and in the end of

the semester. Furthermore, its standardized coefficient, for both start and end of

semester, is the one that presents the strongest explanatory power regarding

entrepreneurial intention. This is consistent with other studies analyzed, where was found

a positive effect between attitudes and entrepreneurial intention (Kolvereid, 1996b; Luthje

& Franke, 2003). Like ATB, also the perceived behaviour control explains entrepreneurial

intention in the beginning and in the end of the semester, which is also consistent with

some studies, such as Davidsson (1995) and Peterman and Kennedy (2003), who

highlight the importance of PBC for entrepreneurial intention. Regarding social norms and

creativity, the variables do not explain entrepreneurial intention at start but they do in the

end of the semester, which means that it is acceptable to affirm that the subject of

entrepreneurship taken between the two points in time may have had impact on the

students’ social norms and creativity.

4.7. Discussion of results

In the past, studies concerning entrepreneurship education impact have generally

reported a positive impact of entrepreneurship education (Lorz, 2011). In fact, when

researching literature about entrepreneurship education impact, it is easy to find studies

with positive results (Fayolle et al., 2006; Matlay, 2008; Peterman & Kennedy, 2003;

Souitaris et al., 2007). On another hand, there are also a few number of studies which

have concluded that the impact of entrepreneurship education on entrepreneurial intention

is insignificant (Lorz, 2011) or even negative (Oosterbeek et al., 2010).

On this particular research, in what concerns the specific impact of entrepreneurship

programme on all constructs previously mentioned (attitude towards behaviour, perceived

behaviour control, social norms, entrepreneurial intention and creativity) it was verified no

statistically significant change for the variables attitude towards behaviour, social norms,

entrepreneurial intention and creativity, between the beginning and the end of the

semester, for the students who took the subject of entrepreneurship. Only the variable

perceived behaviour control showed a statistically significant variation when compared at

the beginning and at the end of the programme, meaning that it was the only variable

impacted by entrepreneurship education. These results are consistent with the results

obtained from Lorz (2011).

40

Regarding the attitudes, it is not simple to understand the results since the

entrepreneurship programmes being studied are in fact concerned with the development

of awareness and attitude. The reason for students’ attitude not have increased

significantly may be due to a relatively high level of attitude in the beginning of the

semester, not leaving much room left for improvement, or perhaps the class methods and

contents did not capture students’ attention or interest.

From social norms perspective, as previously mentioned, a possible reason for

entrepreneurship programmes to not have an impact on this variable may consist on

social pressure to be entrepreneurial being largely extrinsic to the course and being much

more related to the social environment in which the student is inserted, or even because

they are just too young to start their own business and consequently there is not a huge

pressure from family, friends and/or piers to follow that direction.

About entrepreneurial intention not being affected by entrepreneurship education, it is a

result in compliance with previous studies (Lorz, 2011; Oosterbeek et al., 2010), that may

indicate that the programme make students’ expectations more real, leading some

students to become less eager to follow an entrepreneurial career.

In terms of creativity, identically to the variable attitude, students already had a high

level of creativity when starting the semester, not leaving much space for progression in

this area. This aspect can be related to the fact that the mean of ages of the sample is 22

years old, so students are very young and full of ideas. The insignificant impact of

entrepreneurship education on this variable can also be due to the type of classes not

being creative or stimulant enough for the students or even to the duration of the

programme being very reduced (only one semester, with about four hours of class per

week), not allowing to have a real impact on students’ creativity.

Perceived behaviour control was the only construct presenting a significant variation

from start to end, what indicates that entrepreneurship programme had impact on it, which

is in accordance with Peterman and Kennedy (2003) study, meaning that students’

perception of feasibility became higher, so they felt more capable and considered

entrepreneurial related tasks more easy to execute.

In sum, one of the possible explanations for the achieved results consist on the type of

entrepreneurship programmes that are being studied, since the programme was

mandatory for most of students on the experiment, which may influence answers

(Oosterbeek et al., 2010) given that mandatory programmes may attract students who are

not particularly interested in entrepreneurship. An entrepreneurship programme should be

chosen on a voluntary basis so that there is attitude and consequent positive intention

towards the behaviour, in this case, to create a business. Also, the elimination of the

control group when performing the tests cannot be ignored, seeing as it may have had an

impact on this study. It is also possible that one semester is not a long enough period of

time to cause a real impact on students’ entrepreneurial intentions or even to capture

some potential long-term effects. On another hand, some of the main methodological

deficiencies associated with the mixed results from previous studies are not observed on

this research, such as the measurement of impact of entrepreneurship education only at

41

the end of a programme and use of small samples. From this point of view, this study

attempted to overcome some of these shortcomings, however uncontrollable factors did

not allowed to get a very large sample, particularly concerning the control group, forcing

its removal from the sample being tested.

Analyzing the multiple regression test, in model 1, only the constructs attitude towards

behaviour and perceived behaviour control in the beginning of the semester significantly

influence entrepreneurial intention (44%). Since, in this study, entrepreneurial intention

refers to the intention of executing an entrepreneurial behaviour, it is justifiable that it is

influenced by the positive self-evaluation of being an entrepreneur (attitude towards

behaviour) and the capability of performing it (perceived behaviour control). When

analyzing the model 2, it is verifiable a variance from the beginning of the semester to the

end of the semester. In the second model, all the constructs (attitude towards behaviour,

perceived behaviour control, social norms and creativity) in the end of the semester

explain entrepreneurial intention (78.2%), with ATB and PBC continuing to be variables

which influence it the most. These results mean that attending the subject of

entrepreneurship changed way that these variables influence entrepreneurial intention.

42

43

Chapter 5: Conclusion

This dissertation had as main purpose analyze the impact of entrepreneurship

education on students. To this end, it was researched the connection between education

in entrepreneurship and entrepreneurial intention, as well as creativity, taking into

consideration students of higher education who attended the programme of

entrepreneurship. This was achieved by testing students at the beginning and at the end

of the entrepreneurship programme, with a post-ante research design, using the theory of

planned behaviour as a basic structure.

The results indicate that the participation in a programme of entrepreneurship does not

increase neither the entrepreneurial intention nor the creativity. However, the participation

on this programme significantly increased students’ perception of control over

entrepreneurial behaviour. These results are in line with former studies, like the research

carried out by Lorz (2011), where he obtained as result an insignificant impact of the

entrepreneurship education programmes on entrepreneurial intention, with only the

perceived behaviour control being impacted significantly.

It was also verified that the entrepreneurial intention of students is primarily explained

by their attitude towards behaviour and their perceived behaviour control. Yet, after

attending an entrepreneurship programme, students’ social norms and creativity also had

a statistically significant part on the explanation of intention. This relationship found

between creativity and entrepreneurial intentions is in accordance with the results

obtained on the research conducted by Zampetakis and Moustakis (2006), where

students with high perceptions of their creativity also reported high entrepreneurial

intentions.

This research contributes to the literature regarding the impact of entrepreneurship

education since only the perceived behaviour control was found to be affected by the

entrepreneurship programme, reinforcing the recent negative studies that go against the

positive image established (DeTienne & Chandler, 2004; Fayolle et al., 2006; Matlay,

2008; Peterman & Kennedy, 2003). This shows the importance of better understand the

mechanics of impact on entrepreneurial intention and redefine the objectives of

entrepreneurship education in relation to the students. Also, it may be important to take

into consideration how students differentiate amongst them in terms of creative potential

so that the programmes can be more specific and profit different students’ style of

creativity. Incorporating creativity approaches on entrepreneurship programmes will help

the students achieve new and indispensable skills to interact with the dynamic

marketplace of today (Hamidi et al., 2008).

The present dissertation also contributes to the literature of entrepreneurial intentions

through the conceptual use of the theory of planned behaviour since it was found out that

attitude towards behaviour and perceived behaviour control are the most important

variables explaining variance in entrepreneurial intention. However, the other construct

from the TPB – social norms – also influences entrepreneurial intention after being

affected by the attendance of an entrepreneurship programme. Regarding the new

44

construct added to this model – creativity – the same situation occurred. So, although

these two variables do not have a large weight explaining entrepreneurial intention, it is

relevant that there was a change from “not influencing at all” to “having a statistically

significant influence”, when comparing results from beginning and end of the semester,

meaning that the entrepreneurship programme may have had an impact on how these two

variables influence entrepreneurial intention. This impact of creativity can be due to the

fact that, as a concept, it is proactively oriented. According to Hamidi et al. (2008), the

other factors can be considered good indicators of why entrepreneurship is seen as a

viable employment alternative in the eyes of the students but, on another hand, creativity

can proactively influence more the entrepreneurial behaviour in what concerns innovation,

product development and marketing.

In what concerns the methodological limitations, it must to be taken into consideration

the removal of the control group since it was composed by a reduced number of students.

The use of a control group would have given a basis of comparison and would have

probably produced different and more reliable results when explaining the impact of

entrepreneurship education and also entrepreneurial intentions. Another limitation was

created by the small sample given that a bigger sample would produce more realistic

results and help to observe any variations that may have taken place. This limitation took

place due to the fact that many of the students only answered one of the questionnaires

and not both, and so, when pairing the answers from the pre-questionnaires and the post-

questionnaire, and taking into account the total number of students to whom the

questionnaires were handed to, the sample was reduced considerably. Thus, data

collection with this type of methodology should be given great importance since it could be

a limitation for future research. The short period of time can also be consider as a

limitation, since a single subject of entrepreneurship taken over one semester may have a

different impact then a programme with longer duration.

It should be interesting to carry out a longitudinal study, in order to contemplate the

evolution of the participants from the start of an entrepreneurship programme until a few

years later, in order to check if they have increased their entrepreneurial intention and if

later that was translated into entrepreneurial behaviour. Another interesting idea, that

could produce insightful results, would be to compare students attending an

entrepreneurship programme on voluntary basis with students for whom the programme is

mandatory. As previously mentioned it seems that it should be considered of importance

to adjust the objectives and teaching methods to the type of entrepreneurship programme,

whether it is mandatory or voluntary. For example, for students who do not choose to

attend the programme voluntarily, the programme objective should focus on presenting

entrepreneurship as an alternative career choice to the students, while transmitting them

knowledge and relevant technical competences in the area of entrepreneurship, in order

for them to feel that they can control better the entrepreneurial behaviour, comprehending

the reality regarding this area (for example, which supports exist to start their own

business). Nevertheless, an entrepreneurship programme should be attended voluntary

so that there is attitude and consequent positive intention regarding the behaviour. In this

case, the objectives should be different; the programme should be focusing on enhancing

students’ attitude and behaviour toward entrepreneurship.

45

References

Acton, C., Miller, R., Maltby, J., & Fullerton, D. (2009). SPSS for Social Scientists (2nd ed.). Palgrave Macmillan. Retrieved from https://books.google.pt/books?id=w-McBQAAQBAJ&pg=PA132&lpg=PA132&dq=Levene’s+test+for+equality+of+variances+is+interpreted,+which+involves+examining+the+homogeneity+of+the+variance&s

ource=bl&ots=3uJd_dz4vZ&sig=-ykCD6UevxDm2nmsN0tnCG3Js0E&hl=pt-PT&

Alberti, F., Sciascia, S., & Poli, A. (2004). Entrepreneurship education: notes on an ongoing debate. Paper Presented at the 14th Annual IntEnt Conference. Retrieved

from http://www.researchgate.net/publication/228971736_Entrepreneurship_education_notes_on_an_ongoing_debate/file/e0b495236d494817de.pdf

Amabile, T. M. (1997). Entrepreneurial Creativity Through Motivational Synergy. The

Journal of Creative Behavior, 31(1), 18–26. doi:10.1002/j.2162-6057.1997.tb00778.x

Amway. (2012). Amway European Entrepreneurship Report: The Unleashed Potential of

Entrepreneurship in Times of Crisis. Germany.

Andriopoulos, & Constantine. (2001). Determinants of organisational creativity: a literature review. Management Decision, 39(10), 834–840. doi:10.1108/00251740110402328

Ardichvili, A., Cardozo, R., & Ray, S. (2003). A theory of entrepreneurial opportunity identification and development. Journal of Business Venturing, 18, 105–123.

doi:10.1016/S0883-9026(01)00068-4

Barakat, S., Boddington, M., & Vyakarnam, S. (2014). Measuring entrepreneurial self-efficacy to understand the impact of creative activities for learning innovation. The International Journal of Management Education, 1–13.

doi:10.1016/j.ijme.2014.05.007

Baron, R. a. (2000). Psychological Perspectives on Entrepreneurship: Cognitive and Social Factors in Entrepreneurs’ Success. Current Directions in Psychological

Science, 9(1), 15–18. doi:10.1111/1467-8721.00050

Batalha, A., & Pimpão, D. (2011). A Formação Superior em Empreendedorismo em Portugal: Mapeamento e Análise Comparativa. Instituto Universitário de Lisboa.

Bates, T. (1995). Self-employment entry across industry groups. Journal of Business

Venturing, 10(94), 143–156. doi:10.1016/0883-9026(94)00018-P

Batey, M. (2007). A psychometric investigation of everyday creativity. University of

London. Retrieved from http://ethos.bl.uk/ProcessSearch.do?query=439107

Batey, M. (2012). The Measurement of Creativity: From Definitional Consensus to the Introduction of a New Heuristic Framework. Creativity Research Journal, 24(1), 55–

65. doi:10.1080/10400419.2012.649181

46

Batey, M., & Furnham, A. (2006). Creativity, intelligence, and personality: a critical review of the scattered literature. Genetic, Social, and General Psychology Monographs,

132(4), 355–429. doi:10.3200/MONO.132.4.355-430

Bechard, J.-P., & Toulouse, J.-M. (1998). Validation of a didactic model for the analysis of training objectives in entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Venturing, 13(97), 317–

332. doi:10.1016/S0883-9026(98)80006-2

Binnewies, C., Ohly, S., & Sonnentag, S. (2007). Taking personal initiative and communicating about ideas: What is important for the creative process and for idea creativity? European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 16(4), 432–

455. doi:10.1080/13594320701514728

Bryman, A., & Cramer, D. (2011). Quantitative Data Analysis with IBM SPSS 17, 18 & 19: A Guide for Social Scientists. Routledge. Retrieved from

https://books.google.pt/books?id=ojyDmDyPWt0C&printsec=frontcover&dq=Quantitative+Data+Analysis+with+IBM+SPSS+17,+18+&+19:+A+Guide+for+Social+Scientists:+Routledge&hl=pt-PT&sa=X&ved=0CB4Q6AEwAGoVChMItt20htfryAIVhtoaCh2VRA-

0#v=onepage&q=Quantitative Data

Bull, K. S., Montgomery, D., & Baloche, L. (1995). Teaching Creativity at the College Level: A Synthesis of Curricular Components Perceived as Important by Instructors. Creativity Research Journal, 8(1), 83–89. doi:10.1207/s15326934crj0801_7

Carey, C., & Matlay, H. (2010). Creative disciplines education: a model for assessing ideas in entrepreneurship education? Education + Training, 52(8/9), 694–709.

doi:10.1108/00400911011088999

Chen, C. C., Greene, P. G., & Crick, A. (1998). Does entrepreneurial self-efficacy distinguish entrepreneurs from managers? Journal of Business Venturing, 13(97),

295–316. doi:10.1016/S0883-9026(97)00029-3

Cliff, J. E., Jennings, P. D., & Greenwood, R. (2006). New to the game and questioning the rules: The experiences and beliefs of founders who start imitative versus innovative firms. Journal of Business Venturing, 21, 633–663.

doi:10.1016/j.jbusvent.2005.02.010

Davidsson, P. (1995). Determinants of entrepreneurial intentions. Paper prepared for the

RENT IX Workshop (pp. 1–31). Piacenza, Italy. doi:10.1016/S1053-5357(01)00101-9

DeTienne, D. R., & Chandler, G. N. (2004). Opportunity Identification and Its Role in the Entrepreneurial Classroom: A Pedagogical Approach and Empirical Test. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 3(3), 242–257.

doi:10.5465/AMLE.2004.14242103

Dollinger, Stephen, J., Dollinger, S. M. C., & Centeno, L. (2005). Identity and Creativity. Identity. doi:10.1207/s1532706xid0504_2

47

Dominguinhos, P. M., Sardinha, B., Carvalho, L., Ramalho, N., & Pereira, R. (2005). Assessing Entrepreneurial Education in Higher Education in Portugal. In Fostering

Entrepreneurship: The Role of Higher Education (pp. 23–24).

Druker, P. (1985). Innovation and Entrepreneurship. Retrieved from

http://books.google.pt/books?id=OiuDBAAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&hl=pt-PT#v=onepage&q&f=false

Fayolle, A., & Gailly, B. (2004). Using the Theory of Planned Behaviour to Assess Entrepreneurship Teaching Programs : A First Experimentation. IntEnt2004

Conference, Naples (Italy), 5-7 July 2004.

Fayolle, A., Gailly, B., & Lassas-Clerc, N. (2006). Assessing the impact of entrepreneurship education programmes: a new methodology. Journal of European

Industrial Training, 30(9), 701–720.

Feldman, D. C., & Bolino, M. C. (2000). Career patterns of the self-employed: Career motivations and career outcomes. Journal of Small Business Management, 38(July),

53–67. Retrieved from http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?eid=2-s2.0-0034215171&partnerID=40&md5=ecbd2a7d4aef1ee9fd98e64073daebc3

Furnham, A., & Bachtiar, V. (2008). Personality and intelligence as predictors of creativity. Personality and Individual Differences, 45(7), 613–617.

doi:10.1016/j.paid.2008.06.023

Garavan, T., & O’Cinneide, B. (1994a). Entrepreneurship Education and Training Programmes: A Review and Evaluation - Part 1. Journal of European Industrial

Training, 18(8), 3–12.

Garavan, T., & O’Cinneide, B. (1994b). Entrepreneurship education and training programmes: A review and evaluation - Part 2. Journal of European Industrial

Training, 18(11), 13–21.

GEM. (2010). GEM Portugal 2010 - Estudo sobre o Empreendedorismo (pp. 1–98).

GEM. (2012). GEM Portugal 2012 - Estudo sobre o Empreendedorismo (pp. 1–58).

Gibb, A. (2002). In pursuit of a new “enterprise” and “entrepreneurship” paradigm for learning: creative destruction, new values, new ways of doing things and new combinations of knowledge. International Journal of Management Reviews, 4(3),

233. doi:10.1111/1468-2370.00086

Hamidi, D. Y., Wennberg, K., & Berglund, H. (2008). Creativity in entrepreneurship education. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 15(2), 304–320.

Henry, C., Hill, F., & Leitch, C. (2005a). Entrepreneurship education and training: can entrepreneurship be taught? Part I. Education + Training, 47(2), 98–111.

Henry, C., Hill, F., & Leitch, C. (2005b). Entrepreneurship education and training: can entrepreneurship be taught? Part II. Education + Training, 47(3), 158–169.

48

Hunter, B. (2006). Commission of the European Communities. In Implementing the Community Lisbon Programme: Fostering entrepreneurial mindsets through

education and learning. Brussels. doi:10.1016/j.nucengdes.2011.01.052

Jack, S. L., & Anderson, A. R. (1999). Entrepreneurship education within the enterprise culture: Producing reflective practitioners. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour & Research, 5(3), 110–125.

Jackson, N., Oliver, M., Shaw, M., & Wisdom, J. (2006). Developing Creativity in Higher Education: An Imaginative Curriculum. Oxford: Routledge. Retrieved from

https://www.google.pt/books?hl=pt-PT&lr=&id=x2MxpCsQZHgC&oi=fnd&pg=PP1&dq=Developing+Creativity+in+Higher+Education:+An+Imaginative+Curriculum&ots=gUIC0IDbut&sig=GVmQa9iEfTTfQx0

mrTaTHldft-g&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=Developing Creativity in Higher Education

James, K., & Asmus, C. (2001). Personality, Cognitive Skills, and Creativity in Different Life Domains. Creativity Research Journal. doi:10.1207/S15326934CRJ1302_3

Jarna Heinonen, Ulla Hytti, & Pekka Stenholm. (2011). The role of creativity in opportunity search and business idea creation. Education Þ Training, 53(8/9), 659–672.

Ko, S., & Butler, J. E. (2007). Creativity: A key link to entrepreneurial behavior. Business

Horizons, 50(5), 365–372. doi:10.1016/j.bushor.2007.03.002

Koestler, A. (1964). The act of creation. Macmillan.

Kolvereid, L. (1996a). Organisational employment versus self employment: reasons for career choice intentions. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 20, 23–31.

Kolvereid, L. (1996b). Prediction of employment status choice intentions. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 21, 47–57. Retrieved from http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&se=gglsc&d=5002278812\nhttp://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=520195f2-f364-4fe8-afa6-

c2e9016bfa2c@sessionmgr111&vid=5&hid=118

Kolvereid, L., & Moen, Ø. (1997). Entrepreneurship among business graduates: does a major in entrepreneurship make a difference? Journal of European Industrial

Training, 21(4), 154–160. doi:10.1108/03090599710171404

Kourilsky, M. L. (1995). Entrepreneurship education - opportunity in search of curriculum. Business Education Forum, 1–18.

Krueger, N. F., & Reilly, M. D. (2000). Competing Models of Entrepreneurial Intentions. Journal of Business Venturing, 15(98), 411. doi:10.1016/S0883-9026(98)00033-0

Krueger, N. F. (1993). The Impact of Prior Entrepreneurial Exposure on Perceptions of New Venture Eeasibility and Desirability. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 5–

21. doi:Article

49

Krueger, N. F., & Brazeal, D. V. (1994). Entrepreneurial Potential and Potential Entrepreneurs. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 18, 91–104.

doi:10.2139/ssrn.1505244

Kuratko, D. F. (2003). Entrepreneurship Education: Emerging Trends and Challenges for

the 21st Century.

Kuratko, D. F. (2005). The Emergence of Entrepreneurship Education: Development, Trends, and Challenges. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 577–597.

Küttim, M., Kallaste, M., Venesaar, U., & Kiis, A. (2014). Entrepreneurship Education at University Level and Students’ Entrepreneurial Intentions. Procedia - Social and

Behavioral Sciences, 110, 658–668. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.12.910

Lee, S. H., & Wong, P. K. (2004). An exploratory study of technopreneurial intentions: A career anchor perspective. Journal of Business Venturing, 19, 7–28.

doi:10.1016/S0883-9026(02)00112-X

Lee, S. Y., Florida, R., & Acs, Z. (2004). Creativity and Entrepreneurship: A Regional Analysis of New Firm Formation. Regional Studies, 38(8), 879–891.

doi:10.1080/0034340042000280910

Li, J., & Matlay, H. (2005). Graduate employment and small businesses in China. Industry and Higher Education, 19, 45–54. doi:10.5367/0000000053123637

Liñán, F. (2004). Intention-based models of entrepreneurship education. Piccolla

Impresa/Small Business, 3(October), 1–30.

Liñán, F. (2008). Skill and value perceptions: How do they affect entrepreneurial intentions? International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 4, 257–272.

doi:10.1007/s11365-008-0093-0

Liñán, F., & Chen, Y. (2009). Development and Cross-Cultural Application of a Specific Instrument to Measure Entrepreneurial Intentions. Entrepreneurship: Theory and

Practice, 593–618.

Lorz, M. (2011). The impact of entrepreneurship education on entrepreneurial intention.

Doctoral dissertation. University of St. Gallen.

Lourenço, F., & Jayawarna, D. (2011). Enterprise education: the effect of creativity on training outcomes. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour & Research,

17(3), 224–244.

Louw, L., Eeden, S. M. Van, Bosch, J. K., & Venter, D. J. L. (2003). Entrepreneurial traits of undergraduate students at selected South African tertiary institutions. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour & Research, 9(1), 5–26.

doi:10.1108/13552550310461027

Luthje, C., & Franke, N. (2003). the “making” of an entrepreneur: testing a model of entrepreneurial intent among engineering students at MIT. R&D Management, 33(2),

135–147. doi:10.1111/1467-9310.00288

50

Malhotra, N. K., & Birks, D. F. (2006). Marketing Research: An Applied Approach (p. 753).

Prentice Hall, Inc.

Martin, L., & Wilson, N. (2014). Opportunity, discovery and creativity: A critical realist perspective. International Small Business Journal. doi:10.1177/0266242614551185

Matlay, H. (2006). Researching entrepreneurship and education Part 2: what is entrepreneurship education and does it matter? Education + Training, 48(8/9), 704–

718.

Matlay, H. (2008). The impact of entrepreneurship education on entrepreneurial outcomes. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 15(2), 382–396.

Matlay, H., & Carey, C. (2007). Entrepreneurship education in the UK: a longitudinal perspective. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 14(2), 252–263.

Matlay, H., & Westhead, P. (2005). Virtual Teams and the Rise of e-Entrepreneurship in Europe. International Small Business Journal, 23(3), 279–302.

doi:10.1177/0266242605052074

Mitra, J., & Matlay, H. (2004). Entrepreneurial and vocational education and training: Lessons from Eastern and Central Europe. Industry and Higher Education,

18(February), 53–61. doi:10.5367/000000004773040979

Mumford, M. D. (2003). Taking Stock in Taking Stock. Creativity Research Journal, 15(2/3), 147–151. doi:10.1080/10400419.2003.9651408

O’Connor, A. (2013). A conceptual framework for entrepreneurship education policy: Meeting government and economic purposes. Journal of Business Venturing, 28(4),

546–563. doi:10.1016/j.jbusvent.2012.07.003

Olmos, R., & Castillo, M. (2007). La actitud emprendedora durante la vida académica de los estudiantes universitarios. Cuadernos de Estudios Empresariales, 17, 95–116. Retrieved from

http://revistas.ucm.es/index.php/CESE/article/view/CESE0707110095A

Oosterbeek, H., van Praag, M., & Ijsselstein, A. (2010). The impact of entrepreneurship education on entrepreneurship skills and motivation. European Economic Review, 54(3), 442–454. doi:10.1016/j.euroecorev.2009.08.002

Paço, A., Ferreira, J., Raposo, M., Rodrigues, R., & Dinis, A. (2011). Behaviours and entrepreneurial intention: Empirical findings about secondary students. Journal of

International Entrepreneurship, 9(1), 20–38.

Penaluna, A., & Penaluna, K. (2008). Business Paradigms in Einstellung: Harnessing Creative Mindsets, A Creative Industries. Journal of Small Business & Entrepreneurship, 21(2), 231–250. doi:10.1080/08276331.2008.10593588

Penaluna, A., & Penaluna, K. (2009). Assessing creativity: drawing from the experience of the UK’s creative design educators. Education + Training, 51(8/9), 718–732.

doi:10.1108/00400910911005262

51

Peterman, N. E., & Kennedy, J. (2003). Enterprise Education: Influencing Students’ Perceptions of Entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 129–144.

Pinho, L. M., & Gaspar, F. A. (2012). Intenção Empreendedora dos Estudantes no Ensino Superior Politécnico em Portugal. Jornadas Luso-Espanholas de Gestão Científica.

Redford, D. T. (2008). The State of Entrepreneurship Education in Portugal – an Empirical Study on a Nascent System in the European Union Policy Framework. Retrieved

from http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cbdv.200490137/abstract

Reynolds, P. D. (1997). Who Starts New Firms? Preliminary Explorations of Firms-in-Gestation. Small Business Economics, 9, 449–462. doi:10.1023/A:1007935726528

Roxas, B., & Cayoca-Panizales, R. (2008), Entrepreneurial knowledge and its effects on entrepreneurial intentions: development of a conceptual framework. Asia-Pacific Social Science Review, 8(2), 61–77

Sarkar, S. (2007). Empreendedorismo e Inovação. Lisboa: Escolar Editora.

SEDES. (2007). Guia do Empreendedorismo. Lisboa.

Shalley, C. E., & Gilson, L. L. (2004). What leaders need to know: A review of social and contextual factors that can foster or hinder creativity. Leadership Quarterly, 15, 33–

53. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2003.12.004

Shinnar, R., Pruett, M., & Toney, B. (2009). Entrepreneurship Education: Attitudes Across Campus. Journal of Education for Business, 84(3), 151–159.

doi:10.3200/JOEB.84.3.151-159

Shook, C. L., Priem, R. L., & McGee, J. E. (2003). Venture creation and the enterprising individual: A review and synthesis. Journal of Management, 29(3), 379–399.

doi:10.1016/S0149-2063(03)00016-3

Solomon, G. (2007). An examination of entrepreneurship education in the United States. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 14(2), 168–182.

Solomon, G. T., & Fernald, L. W. (1991). Trends in Small Business Management and Entrepreneurship Education in the United States. Entrepreneurship Theory and

Practice, 15, 25. doi:10.1038/35094067

Souitaris, V., Zerbinati, S., & Al-Laham, A. (2007). Do entrepreneurship programmes raise entrepreneurial intention of science and engineering students? The effect of learning, inspiration and resources. Journal of Business Venturing, 22, 566–591.

doi:10.1016/j.jbusvent.2006.05.002

Sternberg, R. J. (2004). Successful intelligence as a basis for entrepreneurship. Journal of

Business Venturing, 19, 189–201. doi:10.1016/S0883-9026(03)00006-5

Taggar, S. (2002). Individual creativity and group ability to utilize individual creative resources: A multilevel model. Academy of Management Journal, 45(2), 315–330.

doi:10.2307/3069349

52

Taylor, G. S., & Banks, M. C. (1992). Entrepreneurs , small business executives , and large business executives : A comparison of the perceived importance of current business issues. Journal of Small Business Management, 30, 24–40.

Tierney, P., & Farmer, S. M. (2002). Creative self-efficacy: Its potential antecedents and relationship to creative performance. Academy of Management Journal, 45(8), 1137–

1148. doi:10.2307/3069429

Toledano Garrido, N. (2006). Las Perspectivas Empresariales De Los Estudiantes Universitarios: Un Estudio Empírico. Revista de Educación, 341, 803–825.

Veciana, J. M., Aponte, M., & Urbano, D. (2005). University Students’ Attitudes Towards Entrepreneurship: A Two Countries Comparison. The International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 1, 165–182. doi:10.1007/s11365-005-1127-5

Vesper, K. H., & Gartner, W. B. (1997). Measuring progress in entrepreneurship education. Journal of Business Venturing, 12, 403–421. doi:10.1016/S0883-

9026(97)00009-8

Walton, A. P. (2003). The impact of interpersonal factors on creativity. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour & Research, 9(4), 146–162.

doi:10.1108/13552550310485120

Wang, C. K., & Wong, P. K. (2004). Entrepreneurial interest of university students in Singapore. Technovation, 24, 163–172. doi:10.1016/S0166-4972(02)00016-0

Ward, T. B. (2004). Cognition, creativity, and entrepreneurship. Journal of Business

Venturing, 19(2), 173–188. doi:10.1016/S0883-9026(03)00005-3

Wu, C., McMullen, J. S., Neubert, M. J., & Yi, X. (2008). The influence of leader regulatory focus on employee creativity. Journal of Business Venturing, 23, 587–602.

doi:10.1016/j.jbusvent.2007.09.005

Zampetakis, L. a. (2008). The role of creativity and proactivity on perceived entrepreneurial desirability. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 3(2), 154–162.

doi:10.1016/j.tsc.2008.07.002

Zampetakis, L. a., & Moustakis, V. (2006). Linking creativity with entrepreneurial intentions: A structural approach. The International Entrepreneurship and

Management Journal, 2(3), 413–428. doi:10.1007/s11365-006-0006-z

53

Appendices

Appendice I – Students’ questionnaire

54

55

56

57

Appendice II – Creativity test

Nome_______________________________ nº de Aluno _____________

1. Instruções de Preenchimento:

Esta escala pede-lhe para avaliar a sua percepção de 11 características pessoais, em comparação com outras pessoas.

Como exemplificação da forma de preenchimento:

“Em comparação com outras pessoas como se considera em termos de …”

Menor Maior

altura?

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Ao assinalar a opção 2, o entrevistado indicou que, comparativamente com outras pessoas, considera-se mais baixo. Se tivessem escolhido 9 ou 10 teria indicado que se consideraria mais alto do que as outras pessoas.

Menor Maior

gentileza? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Ao assinalar a opção 5, o entrevistado indicou que ele (a) considera-se tão gentil como as outras pessoas.

“Em comparação com outras pessoas como se considera em termos de …”

Menor Maior

1 inteligência? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

2 sensatez? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

3 criatividade? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

4 consciência das suas próprias emoções? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

5 transmissão de emoções? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

6 consciência das emoções das outras pessoas? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

7 conhecimento? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

8 sentido de humor/graça? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

58

9 frequência/intensidade com que fica zangado? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

10 impulsividade? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

11 altruísmo? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Documents

VÂNIA REIS DE ENSINO DO EMPREENDEDORISMO: RELAÇÃO …§ão.pdf · research was conducted in the University of Aveiro, using an ex-ante, post-ante design for analyzing students’